Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL

CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Carley Hill School, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the proposed new Carley Hill comprehensive secondary school in Sunderland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The building project for this school was included in the preliminary list of major projects to start in 1975–76 as a replacement for three old secondary schools. The school building programme for that year is, however, still under consideration.

Mr. Willey: Will my hon. Friend keep this matter under urgent consideration? Is he aware that the education authority is greatly obliged to him for enabling it to abolish the 11-plus but that the present provisions are purely temporary improvisations and in my constituency we cannot have comprehensive secondary education in any real sense unless and until we get this new school?

Mr. Armstrong: I certainly give the assurance that we are keeping the matter under urgent review. These children

have been suffering a double handicap in that they were among the minority who were still subject to selection in the borough and in a very old secondary modern school. I assure my right hon. Friend that as soon as a replacement programme is possible—and we are very keen about this matter—we shall bear in mind what he said about Carley Hill.

Absenteeism

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received a copy of the special survey of chronic absenteeism from schools carried out jointly by Sheffield Schools Psychological Service and its education welfare officers; and what is his policy towards its conclusions.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): Findings from this survey and others are among the information being taken into account in the investigation my Department is undertaking into absences from school.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this survey dispels a public myth about education in Sheffield—that is, that the size of the secondary school has a bearing on the size of the absentee problem? Nor is chronic absenteeism primarily a problem of truancy but is rather one of attitudes in the home and the school. When will the Secretary of State equip teachers to recognise and to help children who are likely to become chronic absentees through personal and social problems?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend is correct in the two conclusions to which he has referred. In particular it turned out that some smaller schools had the worst rate of truancy and some of the largest schools had the least truancy. As to the work we are doing, the Department has prepared a statistical survey relating to a particular day in January—I hope to publish the results of that in a few weeks' time—and a wider study, which will be published later, in which other evidence will be taken into account. I think that there will be a number of lessons to be learned from these studies by everyone in the education service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not the very considerable talents of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department be better


employed in investigating the problems which really concern parents, such as truancy, the indiscipline in some schools and the maintenance of academic standards, rather than in reviving the sterile battle between comprehensive and grammar schools?

Mr. Prentice: We are working hard on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In congratulating him on becoming Shadow Minister of Education and giving him the traditional message of wishing him many long and happy years in that office, may I say that what he has just said tends to bear out the impression given, I am afraid, by his speech at the weekend—that we shall hear rather less from the Opposition Front Bench about educational values and rather more about some of the murkier parts of the folklore of the Conservative Party.

Adult Illiteracy

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now collect information from local education authorities about the arrangements they make for the teaching of adult illiterates.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): My right hon. Friend will consider this as part of the review of adult education statistics at present being undertaken in the light of the comments in the Russell Report.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that although some local education authorities are doing a great deal in this regard already, others are doing absolutely nothing? As was evident from my hon. Friend's last reply on this matter, his Department does not have a clue which authorities are doing well and which are not. Now that there is this interest in the problem, will he consider sending out a circular immediately to all local education authorities pointing out the good practice in this regard and how they can get on with the job straight away within their present resources?

Mr. Fowler: It would be exceedingly difficult to send out a circular immediately because there are acute problems of definition in this matter. If statistics are to be collected, they must be meaningful. However, I undertake to examine the possibility of a circular in this area.

We shall be discussing the matter with the main interests concerned, including local authorities.

Mr. Redmond: Since prevention is better than cure, and since the existing large number of illiterates indicates failure in the education system, would it not be better for the Government to concentrate more on increasing the quality of education instead of messing around trying to put everyone in the same mould of comprehensive schools?

Mr. Fowler: The genius of Conservative Members in dragging ther prejudices across the Floor of the House whatever the subject under discussion is quite remarkable. Of course we hope that the successes of the education service in the future will be greater than they were in the past. We hope for a continuous improvement of standards. That does not mean that we must disregard those who lost their chance through no fault of their own in the past.

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary for Education and Science if he will promote Government legislation to provide for an adult literacy fund to promote adult literacy teaching in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of such a fund as part of his study of the recommendations of the Russell Report on Adult Education, including those on the needs of the disadvantaged.

Mr. Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that somewhat encouraging reply. Is he aware that large numbers of people are prepared to give voluntary support to schemes of literacy teaching but need the essential back-up of local authority support in basic, rudimentary facilities? Should not we attempt to achieve this as early as possible?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. Friend.

London Allowance

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with local education authorities in counties near London such as Bedfordshire on the subject of converting the London teacher allowance into a South-East allowance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, as part of his review of the weighting allowance, he will investigate and make a statement on the staff teaching situation in Greater London.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, as part of his review of London weighting allowance for teachers, he will give consideration to revising the boundaries for allowances for teachers to ensure that teachers working in the same town will receive the same allowance.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current position on the payment of an increased London allowance to school teachers.

Mr. Prentice: The Pay Board was asked as part of its review of London weighting to consider the present boundaries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expects to receive its report at the end of this week and will arrange for its early publication. It will then be for the Burnham Committees to review the London allowance for teachers, including the boundaries of the allowance, in the light of the Pay Board's report.

Mr. Madel: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that if the London allowance is increased on the basis of the existing boundaries it might bring more teachers into the capital from counties such as Bedfordshire, which are trying to help solve London's education problems? Since the cost of living in those counties is the same as in London, however, does he not feel that the allowance should become a South-East allowance? In that way we might attract more teachers into the South-East as a whole.

Mr. Prentice: This is a complex problem, because wherever a boundary is drawn for an allowance of this kind there will almost inevitably be difficulties. I had better not comment on the merits of any particular solution because the Pay Board's report will be available in a few days' time and will be considered in the appropriate committees.

Mr. Molloy: Over the last few years the London allowance and teachers' sala

ries have been sources of great discontent. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is now being reflected in the difficulties of London education authorities to recruit and hold their staffs because of the way those staffs have been treated? Will he give some assurance that he will act swiftly to remedy some of these grievances?

Mr. Prentice: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that there will be speedy action after we receive the Pay Board's report. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the matter in the context of the problem of teachers' pay. Teachers have fallen behind for some years, which is why we have appointed a review body on the whole question.

Mr. Tuck: I thank my right hon. Friend for his original answer, but is he aware that teachers in one part of Watford get the London allowance whereas those in another part do not? This is creating great consternation among teachers, which means that the town is unable to recruit them and is in fact losing them. Will he do his best to remedy that situation?

Mr. Prentice: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. He explained it graphically to me last week. As I said earlier, this is one aspect of the problem which will be a subject of the Pay Board's report.

Mr. William Shelton: Is the Minister aware that substantial leaks about the report appeared in the Press last week? Will he comment on their accuracy? Is he aware that many teachers were led to believe that the improved London weighting allowance would start during June? Will he confirm that this will be so?

Mr. Prentice: I noticed the leaks. I would prefer not to comment on their accuracy. The starting date of any improved allowance is one of the matters on which the Pay Board could report and is open for negotiation within the Burham Committees.

Student Grants

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received


from mature students since his recent review of student grants about the problems of obtaining discretionary grants.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Two letters have been received.

Mr. Walker: In the new county of Avon there is serious restriction on discretionary grants which will definitely hurt working-class students who need further education. Many of them missed out on the 11-plus and many left school to go to work without qualifications. Will my hon. Friend look into this to try to get an improvement in the grants position in the new county?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I certainly share his views that local education authorities should look sympathetically upon the needs of mature students when considering grants.

Mr. Fry: The whole question of parental contributions now presents enormous problems to students and their parents, largely because of the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the Minister undertake to look into the whole question of parental contributions since we understand that the Labour Party is not in favour of selective benefits?

Mr. Fowler: I do not see how parental contributions arise out of the question of discretion. Nevertheless, in the award announced recently we raised the ceiling of income below which a family suffers no diminution in student grant. We have done much better in this respect than many people expected, and certainly better than the Conservatives did when they were in power.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider reducing the grant payable to a married male student on the basis of contribution from his wife's income.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: As my right hon. Friend said in answer to Questions about student grants on 14th May, a contribution according to income will be required in future from the husband or wife of a married student whose grant is not subject to a parental contribution.

Mr. Cook: Does my hon. Friend accept that to many students this will be an unacceptable proposal? Does he understand that as a result of this means test many married students will return to universities this autumn with a smaller grant than they had the previous year? Does he agree that the cost of removing this anomaly would be small when set against the overall grant? Will he undertake to consider this matter in the annual review of student grants?

Mr. Fowler: The cost of removing this requirement may be small in relation to the grant total, but it is significant. I do not accept that the taxpayer should be required to pay over and above what he would otherwise have to pay merely to support the wife or husband—because it works both ways—of families who are pretty well off. That is the rationale behind this proposal.

Teachers' Superannuation

Mr. Bates: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the date of operation for the reduced level of teachers' superannuation payments.

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in arriving at satisfactory arrangements to enable teachers' contributions to their superannuation scheme to be reduced from 6·75 per cent. to 6 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in arriving at satisfactory arrangements for teachers who entered the service after the war to count their war service, subject to payment of appropriate contributions as to half, for pension purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: The Government have decided that the operative date of the reduction of the teachers' contribution to 6 per cent. should be 1st December 1973. The question of war service is complex and will be discussed tomorrow at a meeting of the Working Party on Teachers' Superannuation.

Mr. Bates: I thank my right hon. Friend for the concession, though it seems to be somewhat limited. Will he explain what is so special about the date of 1st December 1973? Why did he choose it? Were not the teachers paying the 6¾ per cent. rate from 1972 until the actuarial review showed that the scheme was making a profit, and would not 1972 be a better date from which to operate the reduction?

Mr. Prentice: The date is a compromise between the date suggested by the teachers' unions and the date offered by the last Government. The significance of 1st December is that it is the closest convenient date to 28th November, which was the date on which the House of Commons reversed policy on the matter. As to whether the reduction should have been backdated further, that aspect of the question, along with several other matters that have not been decided, has repercussions for other aspects of public service superannuation, which is why it has taken so long and why it has been so difficult to reach an agreed answer on these detailed points.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Secretary of State treat the matter of war service counting for pension as urgent? These people were absent on urgent national business, and everyone would like to see them properly treated with their education pensions. Will the Secretary of State get the matter decided quickly and come up with an answer before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Prentice: I hope that it will be decided quickly. There have been difficult and tiresome delays which I regret as much as anyone. On the general principle, the policy was changed in favour of the teachers on the initiative of the Labour Opposition in the motion they put down and which the House carried on 28th November 1973.

Mr. Freud: In view of the Government's avowed faith in retrospective legislation, will the Secretary of State consider backdating the reduced level of teachers' superannuation payments to the date when they found that the Government were making a great deal of money out of the teachers' contributions?

Mr. Prentice: I believe that I covered that point in an earlier reply. We con

sidered the matter and there were difficulties which I have described. The date I have now announced is an improvement on two successive alternative dates put forward by the Conservative Government.

Secondary Education

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his policy on secondary education.

Mr. Armstrong: I have received many representations about comprehensive reorganisation, both in general and concerning particular schools.

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State's policy is the abolition of selection into secondary schools or whether it is the abolition of selection both into and within secondary schools?

Mr. Armstrong: The Government's policy is undoubtedly to abolish selection at all stages of the school system. The hon. Gentleman will know that the organisation within schools is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, although we are anxious that the selection and labelling of children will cease as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that the Government have no intention of altering streaming by law?

Mr. Armstrong: As my hon. Friend knows, I have strong views about streaming. At present the organisation within schools is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, although we are considering all aspects of this serious problem and from time to time we shall make our views known.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the exact legal status of the part of the circular which concerns itself with withholding funds from the voluntary aided schools? Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State has no legal power to withhold funds, and is that passage in the circular nothing more than a piece of rhetorical blackmail?

Mr. Armstrong: My right hon. Friend issued the circular with full legal advice from within the Department. He dealt


with this subject at great length in the House. If the hon. Gentleman cares to re-read the circular he will find the suggestions and the advice to local authorities very clear.

Teaching Staff (London)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the recently published survey of staff turnover in schools included temporary-terminal or supply teachers; and if, as part of his review of the weighting allowance, he will now investigate the incidence of teacher change for primary school classes in Greater London.

Mr. Prentice: My Department's survey related to all full-time qualified teachers in schools, however employed. The London weighting allowance has been studied by the Pay Board. I understand that the board has examined evidence of teacher turnover.

Mr. Spearing: I thank my right hon. Friend for answering the first part of the Question. Does he agree that it was high time that a survey was undertaken of the extent to which primary school teachers change schools? Does he appreciate that that factor is of great influence in the way in which primary school children take to learning and to literacy? If my right hon. Friend undertook such a survey or talked about it with Her Majesty's inspectors, we might get to the bottom of some of the difficulties that we now have.

Mr. Prentice: I agree that my hon. Friend has identified an important subject. The experience in different schools varies disturbingly. The total turnover in primary schools in Greater London, as shown in the survey, was about 30 per cent. That is a higher percentage than for secondary schools. There is an enormous variation between schools. For example, among the 500 schools which gave figures the range was as wide as it could be. There were three schools which lost all their teachers in the course of a year and there were 31 schools which lost no teachers. I recognise that the loss of a lot of teachers at individual schools can have a serious effect on primary school education. That is one of the reasons for the urgency of the present London weighting situation.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had on the effects of raising the school leaving age.

Mr. Armstrong: My right hon. Friend has received a number of requests, to which he has not been able to accede, to exempt individual pupils in one way or another from the requirements of the existing legislation. Some teachers have expressed anxiety about the possibility of truancy or indiscipline resulting from the obligation of attendance, in some cases after examinations, on pupils who are not free to leave until the end of the summer term.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the anxiety to which he refers is widespread throughout the country and in all branches of the teaching profession? Does he feel that the time has come for a review to determine how schools can be helped to enable the pupils to make the best use of the valuable extra year? Perhaps that can be done through better work-related schemes and through the provision of more money to enable the schools to cope with the great problems that the extra year has created for them.

Mr. Armstrong: This is the first year of the increase in the school leaving age. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that before the leaving age was raised many suggestions were made about how to use the extra year. We are anxious to allocate extra resources so that all children may profit from the extra year. My hon. and learned Friend will not need to be reminded about the economic situation that we inherited from the previous administration. I remind the House that the Government are firmly committed to providing for every child, whatever label we may place upon him or her, a full secondary education course. That is the entitlement of every child. We are determined to give the resources to enable the teachers to make full use of that course.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that the full secondary course has usually meant that pupils have taken their examinations, either GCE or CSE, and have


left at the end of May? There is an acute problem now because the staff at many schools do not want children not sitting GCE or CSE examinations to be at school. In many schools they have been more or less told to leave. At the same time they cannot get an employment card, which means that for two months they are wandering loose, which seems a dangerous way of occupying their time.

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, we are aware of of those difficulties, and the House will recognise that we are now consulting teachers' associations, local authorities and other bodies on difficulties that have arisen. The Government are anxious to do nothing to cause a greater distinction between those who are examination pupils and those who are not. There is enough segregation and labelling already. We shall review the replies that we receive. I suggest to the House that it is too early, the first year not yet having been completed, to make decisions about fresh legislation regarding the school leaving age.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that some Opposition Members who are so deeply critical of the raising of the school leaving age would no more dream of taking their own children away from school at 15 than of flying?

Mr. Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would say to some Opposition hon. Members, particularly those who have a distinguished record in the education service, that there are thousands of children who are benefiting from the higher school leaving age. They are benefiting because of the dedicated and able service of teachers throughout the country. The House should be backing those who are doing such a good job for our young folk instead of continually suggesting that the education service is breaking down.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Does the Minister agree that there is evidence of disillusionment with the raising of the school leaving age in the staff rooms of secondary schools? Does he think that consideration should be given to the suggestion that more pupils should complete their fifth year of secondary education in technical colleges or in the schools of the Armed Services? Does he agree that it would

be better if all the proponents of the raising of the school leaving age recognised the real problems of pupil indifference and resentment and did not seek to sweep them complacently under the table?

Mr. Armstrong: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on this Front Bench to sweep the very real problems under the carpet. The hon. Gentleman has been in the service long enough to realise that indiscipline and truancy did not begin with the raising of the school leaving age. There was indiscipline and truancy long before that. I wish that he would pay more attention to the facts or at least get a balanced view instead of knocking the raising of the school leaving age.

Polytechnics

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the rôle of the polytechnic in higher education.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The process of designating the 30 polytechnics is now complete. They form a distinctive sector of higher education with its own characteristics, where flexibility is the keynote both in range of subjects and types of course. They have already made impressive progress and it is the Government's intention to see that this continues. I attach particular importance first to their maintaining links with industry and commerce and generally contributing to the community which they serve, and secondly to their continuing to cater for all types of student by offering a wide range of courses, including sandwich and part-time courses at a variety of levels.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt in the polytechnics about their ability to meet the degree standards of the National Council for Academic Awards, underlined by—up to now—a lack of any clear future policy? Will he give a guarantee to the polytechnics that they have a clear future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—as providers of university-level education? Will he meet representatives of polytechnic teachers to discuss their salary and career structure?

Mr. Fowler: I am delighted to see the evidence of adult literacy on the Conservative benches today. The hon.


Gentleman is six weeks out of date. I have already met representatives of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers. As far as I know, the polytechnics have no difficulty in meeting the standards of the Council for National Academic Awards, to give it its correct name. When I was the assistant director of a polytechnic I found that in the polytechnic world we were making rapid progress and we certainly did not feel ourselves to be in any way inferior to the universities.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first part of his original answer will seem a little complacent to certain people in polytechnics? Is he further aware that the salary differential between universities and polytechnics is now wider than it has ever been and is posing appalling staffing problems for the polytechnics in getting the people they need to carry out the sort of policies he has outlined? Will he make sure that the inquiry into teachers' pay, which I understand includes further education and the polytechnics, takes this very serious situation into account?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has largely answered the question for me. That is one subject which the review will examine. I hope that it will come up with the right answer.

Miss Fookes: Can the hon. Gentleman say how a polytechnic differs from a university in its rôle and distinctiveness?

Mr. Fowler: That was part of my original answer. For example, I stressed the question of part-time students. Fifty per cent. of students in polytechnics are part-time. If the hon. Lady inquires she will find that no university has a similar provision. There are many other features. If the hon. Lady reads my answer she will discover what they are.

Further Education Students

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has received to his speech to the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutes on 25th May in relation to increased educational opportunities for those aged from 16 to 19 years.

Mr. Prentice: It is early days for specific responses to that general invita

tion. But I have already had useful discussions with a number of interested bodies.

Mr. Farr: While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is considered essential to provide unsurpassed educational opportunities for those aged 16 to 19 who are likely to benefit from such instruction? At the same time will he consider whether, in the national interest, there is a case for reducing the compulsory school leaving age from 16 and channelling the money saved into providing better services to those who wish to remain at school and learn until, perhaps, the age of 19?

Mr. Prentice: The Government certainly have no proposal to reduce the compulsory school leaving age. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with that most capably a few moments ago. We recognise that there is a tremendous opportunity gap between what we do for those who stay on in full-time higher education and for those who do not. We further recognise that the majority of those who do not stay on do not get day release, block release or any equivalent. One of our priorities ought to be an expansion of opportunities in this area.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in times of economic stringency it is invariably further education, and technical education in particular, which suffers decreased opportunities? Is he further aware that in our post-Imperial phase we shall have to rely a great deal upon good technical education? Does he realise that even within Labour Party committees there appears to be a bias towards universities and university students and away from further education?

Mr. Prentice: I hope that my hon. Friend will not accuse me of such bias. I want to see a considerable improvement of opportunities in part-time education for those in the 16 to 19 age group, both for the economic reasons mentioned and, more importantly, in terms of the general educational development of young people.

Teachers' Pay

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the special review of teachers' salaries.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into teachers' pay.

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on arrangements for the general review of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Prentice: I announced the names of the chairman and members of the committee of inquiry and their terms of reference in the answer given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemiston) on Friday 21st June. I am sure that hon. Members were very glad to learn that our old colleague Douglas Houghton had accepted my invitation to preside over this important committee. The committee has been asked to submit its recommendations as soon as possible.

Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his personal influence to make sure that the outcome of the review is both speedy and fair? As he has now made clear that the Burnham Committee is to be involved, as usual, will he also be willing, at a suitable time, to take a similar initiative over a review of the Burnham machinery?

Mr. Prentice: I have no immediate proposals to review the Burnham machinery. The hon. Member is correct to remind the House that the recommendations of the committee of inquiry will be reported to the Burnham Committees and their equivalent in Scotland. For statutory and, I think, practical reasons, it is within those committees that the final details must be worked out.

Adult Education

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce the Government's action on the Russell Report proposals on adult education.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: As soon as I find it possible.

Mr. Carter: May I say that I find it only just possible to thank my hon. Friend for that reply? Is he aware that many of us have felt that for far too long adult education has been the Cinderella of education? May I ask him to sketch out for us, albeit in a few words, the kind of priorities the Government and in particular his Department attach to adult education?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question because it gives me the opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend and I attach the highest importance to adult education. We are making as much haste as we can, consonant with getting it right and consonant with the present public expenditure situation. Since the Russell Report was with my right hon. Friend's predecessor 15 months ago and she did precisely nothing, I can give the House a solemn assurance that I have no desire to rival her in seeking an entry in the Guinness Book of Records for monumental inactivity.

Mr. Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Open University is playing an increasingly important part in adult education, an area which is being starved? Will he give the assurance that in future he will consider greater financial assistance for this important sector of education?

Mr. Fowler: I am always happy to assure the House. I will consider further assistance to what is perhaps one of the greatest creations of my party when last in power.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people, in spite of the lack of educational opportunities years ago, are making a contribution towards the nation's economy? Will he therefore treat the matter with more urgency than he has done in the past?

Mr. Fowler: I should find it difficult to treat it with more urgency than I am doing. I entirely share my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister give an assurance that he is considering urgently the recommendation contained


in the Russell Report relating to the funding of students who are attending long-term residential colleges and in particular to the recommendation that grants for those students should be mandatory?

Mr. Fowler: We are considering and will consider this matter.

GCE A-Level Entrants

Dr. Boyson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the fact that the number of GCE A-level entries and passes have not risen at the rate which was earlier forecast, he will consider the appointment of a new committee on higher education to review the recommendations of the Robbins Report.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: No, Sir. My Department has these matters under continuous review.

Dr. Boyson: Does the Minister agree that as the calculation in respect of the number of students taking two A-level subjects made in the Department of Education and Science planning paper No. 2 in 1970 is out by 11 per cent. over two years, a new committee on higher education should be appointed, particularly bearing in mind that many people have changed their minds about the Robbins Report, including Lord Robbins himself, on the question of grants and the disability of a gap in education between the time when pupils leave school and enter university?

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir, that does not affect my original reply. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the importance of the Robbins Report. Its importance lay in establishing principles which should be observed in determining the proportion of students who were able and willing to go on to higher education and for whom places should be provided. The importance did not lie in the report's statistical appendices, which must be subject to continuous review year by year.

Mr. Marten: Would not some of these problems be overcome if we got away from the binary system and appointed a higher education commission to deal with both further and higher education?

Mr. Fowler: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's oft-expressed view on that subject. I will certainly consider it.

Teachers (Housing Assistance)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, as part of his review of teachers' salaries, he will consider the possibility of assisted housing for young teachers.

Mr. Prentice: The independent committee of inquiry will be free to consider any question it regards as coming within its terms of reference.

Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he ask the independent committee to bear in mind that a major disincentive for young teachers coming to the South-East is the cost and scarcity of housing? Will he press for discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that they may co-ordinate their efforts to tackle this problem?

Mr. Prentice: This matter is mainly for the local authorities concerned. I am glad to note that in the recent past several local authorities in the London area and elsewhere have made greater provision for houses to let to teachers, and other local authorities have given special help with mortgages. If housing were to become a general part of remuneration it would have to go before the Burnham Committee for negotiation, and, as I said in my original reply, the review committee could recommend that if it so wished.

Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit thick that we should have that sort of exhortation from the Opposition when only last week they did their best to prevent the Greater London Council from having money with which it could purchase houses all over London and thereby contribute to the solution of this problem?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, it is fascinating in this political period to observe the constant expression by the Opposition of good intentions on every subject under the sun and the way in which they try to frustrate the Government and Labour-controlled local authorities in making social progress.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the appointment of the commission under a distinguished former Member of the House, Lord Houghton, to


review teachers' salaries? Is he aware that interim relief could be given through the provision of housing and that this is particularly urgent for women teachers whose salary increases have been at only half the rate of those for manual workers—38 per cent. as opposed to 75 per cent.? Will he urge local authorities to exercise the powers they already have in favour of teachers?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. Some authorities are doing that, and that is why my hon. Friend's question was relevant. The GLC is trying to give assistance to the Inner London Education Authority on this problem and so are several outer London boroughs. As Secretary of State for Education, I should like to see as much as possible done by local authorities, particularly in areas of teacher shortage.

INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June about State ownership of industry represents Government policy.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June on the subject of the State's rôle in industry represented Government policy.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry on industry and nationalisation at the Nottingham miners' gala at Mansfield on 8th June represents Government policy.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Industry on public ownership on 8th June at Mansfield represents Government policy.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry at the Nottingham miners' conference on the efficiency of the private sector of industry on 8th June 1974 represents Government policy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry at Mansfield on 8th June on public ownership represents Government policy.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rost: Is it not alarming, at a time when the business community is already demoralised as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's anti-business Budget, that the Secretary of State for Industry should contribute to the nation's crisis of confidence by threatening to demolish the rest of the free enterprise sector? Will the Prime Minister dismiss the saboteurs on his Front Bench, or will he resign to make way for a Government that will be strong enough to solve the country's problems?

Mr. Short: The largest factor contributing to the reduction of confidence this year was the three-day week, for which the Conservative Party was entirely responsible.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is any demoralisation in the House it is among Conservative Members who are trying to find a bogey man? Does he also agree that 75 per cent. of the country's economy is run by private enterprise and that during the last two decades this country has not progressed as fast as have other Western countries because of inadequate management and investment in industry? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in future plans we must make certain that industry is run on behalf of the people?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservative Party must have a bogey man in every election. Clearly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will be the bogey man in the next election. My right hon. Friend has simply reiterated the proposals which were approved overwhelmingly at last year's Labour Party conference, published in our manifesto and included in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the Lord President undertake that the promised Green Paper will be published in the lifetime of this


Parliament and that when it comes[Interruption]—it will specify not only those industries which are thought appropriate for take-over by the National Enterprise Board but also those companies—[Interruption]—which are thought appropriate for participation in the so-called planning agreement system?

Mr. Short: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I could not hear a word the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Lord President was unable to hear what I was saying, would it be in order for me to repeat my question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may repeat his question.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the Lord President undertake that his promised Green Paper will be published during the lifetime of the present Parliament and that, when it does come, it will give the details not only of those industries which are thought appropriate for take-over by the National Enterprise Board but also of all the companies which the Government envisage could properly take part in the so-called planning agreement system?

Mr. Short: The Government will publish their proposals in the next few weeks. They will be in the form not of a Green Paper but of a White Paper—and they will be firm. The White Paper will not contain a list of firms.

Mr. Ashley: As the Opposition are already fighting their election campaign on the stunt of State control, which will backfire in much the same way as the "Reds under the bed" stunt at the last election, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to call their bluff and recommend going to the country next month?

Mr. Short: I am sure my hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he said, and I shall convey the last part of his supplementary question to the Prime Minister on his return.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will provide time for the White Paper "Gosplan" to be fully debated in the House before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, I cannot promise that, but before any legislation comes before the House it will have an opportunity, perhaps in the autumn for two days, to discuss the proposals fully.

Mr. Loughlin: In view of the fact that this is a serious issue involving almost the future of our nation, if the two barometers of confidence for industry are first investment and secondly the share price index, is it not wise to look at the rate of investment in the latter part of 1973 and the first quarter of 1974 and at the share index in November last year? Do not those figures indicate that the lack of confidence in British industry is related not to the present Government but to the policies of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Short: Investment in plant and machinery and in manufacturing industry fell 20 per cent. during those years, and for 1974 it is not likely to be very much better. This is an appalling state of affairs and it is the subject to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry devoted most of his Nottingham speech. The Conservative Party will not apply itself to this problem.

Mr. Heath: In the absence of the Prime Minister, an absence we all understand, perhaps the Leader of the House could help the House on one matter. Is there no way under Clause 5, subsection (1), or whatever the number is, of the Labour Party's constitution that would enable the Prime Minister to wriggle out of the commitment of the Secretary of State for Industry—in exactly the same way as yesterday in the national interest he wriggled out of commitments in respect of nuclear tests?

Mr. Short: From one of the biggest wrigglers in Britain, that is a bit thick. The Prime Minister wriggled out of nothing yesterday. He explained the position of the nuclear deterrent and NATO absolutely clearly. It was the Leader of the Opposition's memory that was defective. My right hon. Friend's proposals have been described in his speeches. We do not want to wriggle out of these things. They are an essential part of our policy and after the next election we shall implement those policies.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the public speech he delivered at a rally of Labour women in Swansea on 9th June on the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech at Swansea on Sunday 9th June on the Common Market in the Library.

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy to the National Conference of Labour Women at Swansea on 9th June.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 10th June, Sir.

Mr. Duffy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that speech the Prime Minister described European negotiators as tough fighters for the interests of their own countries? Does he not think that this must be the overriding objective of the Foreign Secretary in his conduct of renegotiations, whatever the advice and pressures on him, and that it is also urgent to see the renegotiations in the perspective of Western Europe's will and ability to survive if it is to make a concerted and meaningful contribution to world peace and welfare?

Mr. Short: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in making his comments was referring to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that we were endangering their lives. I do not know what he meant by that. The Prime Minister was right to say that they are tough negotiators and we intend to be equally tough in renegotiating the terms.

Mr. Marten: Although we are always pleased to see the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, could the House be given an explanation of why the Prime Minister is absent today? If he is in Brussels, could he be reminded that

this is the place where he should be? Perhaps he could arrange to be in Brussels on a Wednesday or a Friday.

Mr. Short: We all understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the EEC, but he must not get pathological about it. The House has always been courteous to Prime Ministers when attending meetings of this kind.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the fact that he should closely study the activities of the newly-formed European Group of Labour Members of Parliament on the question of the Common Market? Will he remind him that two important motions were carried last night, by rather more than a two-thirds majority, suggesting that we should have a special Labour Party conference on the Common Market regarding the referendum after renegotiations have been completed, and that we also propose that no Labour Members of Parliament should go to the European Assembly at Strasbourg? Will he also tell the Prime Minister that one of the next motions may well relate to the stopping of the payment of £20,000 to the European Movement?

Mr. Short: On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I can assure him that the Prime Minister carefully scrutinises all groups, subgroups and individuals in the Labour Party. On the question of putting the results of the negotiations to the British people, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It certainly will be through the ballot box.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Leader of the House answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister last week? Is not the Common Market the best hope we have, in the light of the failure of Sunningdale, to get the North and the South of Ireland together and to enable them to work together?

Mr. Short: It is an interesting point of view. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will bear it in mind.

Mr. Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister in his speech referred to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to be deeply concerned that our partners


in Europe should not be injured in any way by our attempts to renegotiate the terms of entry? Will he take steps to convey to the people of this country that the Opposition's concern is more for people of other countries than it is for people in our country?

Mr. Short: I have already referred to the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the 17 delegates from Europe. The right hon. Gentleman said some amazing things. For example, he said that we were endangering their lives; he also said that a minority Government were not entitled to renegotiate the terms. May I remind him that we intend to renegotiate the terms and to put the results of that renegotiation before the British people? They will make the decision—[Interruption.] It may be an election, it may be a referendum.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news that the Prime Minister scrutinises all groups in the Labour Party leaves us uncertain whether to sympathise most with the Prime Minister or with the groups?

POULSON CASE

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a tribunal of inquiry to examine the cases of corruption arising from the Poulson trial and associated matters.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Specific allegations of corruption are a matter for the police. In his statement on 29th April my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced his intention to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission on the Standards of Conduct in Public Life.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Royal Commission does not go far enough and that a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act is imperative in the light of recent court decisions? Is he aware, further, that those of us in the North-East find his reply disappointing, especially as it comes from one of our colleagues in that area? Does he recollect that Mr. Justice Waller at Leeds Crown Court made reference to
an army of paid lieutenants

in the town halls of the North-East? Does not that in itself warrant consideration under the Act of 1921?

Mr. Short: Certainly it warrants consideration by the police. But the point is that tribunals of inquiry under the 1921 Act are confined by the statute to definite matters of urgent public importance. [Interruption.] We consider that the inquiry now proposed should review a much wider area than it would be appropriate to entrust to a tribunal of inquiry. Therefore we take the view that a Royal Commission is the right way of proceeding.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that whatever inquiries are made into this matter will include inquiries into the illegal or corrupt claiming of election expenses in by-elections in the North-East—and make it retrospective?

Mr. Short: Without notice, I do not know whether that will come under the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I too intend to try to raise the same matter.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I propose, unless there is any objection, to put together the Questions on Motions No. 1 to 7 relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
That the draft Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the Horticulture (Apple and Pear Growers) (Special Payments) Scheme 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.


That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Undertakings and their Employees) (Soviet Union) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the draft Grants to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question agreed to.

PLANNING PERMISSION CHARGES BILL

3.32 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to levy charges with respect to the grant of planning permission for development.
Successive housing Ministers have grappled vainly with the problems arising when land which is not being intensively used is to be exploited for housing or some other form of building development. The problems arise from a single cause, that the decision to make a change in the use of the land immediately increases its value many times. As I say, they arise from one cause, but they take two forms.
One set of problems relates to the huge windfall profits which an individual may make if somehow he can get planning permission to develop a piece of land which hitherto has been used for farming or as an open space. In most cases he has done nothing much by way of hard work to earn this colossal bonus.
The other set of problems arise when it is not the private individual but the public authority which is to develop a piece of land in private ownership. The question arises, on what basis is the owner of the land to be compensated? Is it to be acquired at its existing use value, in which case the public authority gets a bargain at the owner's expense, or is the owner to receive the value of the land as development land, in which case he is getting something valuable for very little effort'?
Housing Ministers, hand-in-glove with Chancellors of the Exchequer, have grappled with these problems by such devices as land levies, betterment levies and land commissions without achieving notable success either in securing a plentiful supply of building land at reasonable prices or in satisfying any of the parties concerned, least of all the general public, that the present system is fair.
I seek by this Bill to inject into the system an element of logical calculation and to remove from the system the arbitrary, windfall element. The purpose of the Bill is to enable planning authorities


to make a charge for the grant of planning permission which results in a profitable change of use.
My proposal is very different in kind from that put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in the original version of his Local Revenue Bill. Whereas my right hon. Friend proposed a fixed charge to cover the administrative costs of planning departments, I propose a charge directly related to the expected increase in value resulting from the grant of planning permission. In other words, planning permission would be sold like any other valuable commodity.
This charge, which would replace all existing charges on land transactions, would go to the local authority and provide it with an additional source of revenue. One side effect would be to strengthen the hands of local authorities in their dealings with developers who fail to carry through their obligations in relation to the completion of roadways, verges, etc., which is a matter vexing a great many of my constituents on new housing estates in Mold and elsewhere.
The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide a more manifestly fair basis either for the individual to pay over part of his gains to the community or for the community to reimburse the individual. I believe that it would go a long way towards removing the temptation to corruption or, perhaps more important, the popular tendency to impute corruption to a planning authority which has it in its gift to confer immensely valuable planning permissions to fortunate individuals if, instead of getting this right for nothing, the individual had to pay for it at the rate of, say, 50 per cent. of the

expected increase in value. There would have to be provision for deferred payment, since there would be a delay before the recipient of planning permission could begin to derive cash benefit from it.
Time does not permit me to explain how the same system in reverse would provide a basis on which the local authority could reach agreement with an individual whose land it acquired for development.
What is crucial is the ratio between the expected value of the development and the charge to be made for planning permission—in other words, the sale price of the planning permission. I have used the figure of 50 per cent. by way of illustration, and I should expect that to be about right. A higher figure might diminish the supply of building land. A lower figure would not eliminate the arbitrariness which is so unacceptable a feature of the existing system.
I do not flatter myself that I have found an answer to problems which have baffled many Ministers, but I suggest that to introduce a concept of a fair price for a valuable asset would make these problems easier to tackle.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Anthony Meyer.

PLANNING PERMISSION CHARGES

Sir Anthony Meyer accordingly presented a Bill to empower local authorities to levy charges with respect to the grant of planning permission for development; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th June and to be printed. [Bill 72]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Under-Secretary to introduce the first new clause, I have one or two matters to put to the House.
We are all in some difficulties as a result of obvious problems which have arisen. The Notice Paper has been produced in difficult circumstances. A great deal of hard work has been done to produce as much as we have. The Notice Paper is not in a very convenient form. It has not been possible to marshall the amendments in the order in which they relate to the Bill. However, the document which I advise hon. Members to follow is the list of selected amendments. Hon. Members will notice that against certain numbers a page number appears. For example, new Clause 10 has beside it "(p 19)". That refers to page 19 in the document headed "Housing Bill, as amended".
There are three specific matters to which I wish to draw attention. The first of them concerns new Clause 15. It has been represented to me that this was, in fact, the first new clause to be handed in and that it is only because of the general difficulties that inadvertently it has not, been placed immediately after the Government new clauses. I therefore propose to call it in that position—that is, immediately after Government new Clause 11.
Secondly, the new schedule printed as Amendment No. 85 on page 3 was intended to be a new clause. I have selected it to be moved as a new clause after all the other new clauses that have been selected.
Finally, what is shown on page 9 as new Clause 5 is in fact an amendment, and it may be discussed with new Clause 11.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for

that statement and for the movement of new Clause 15. I have the printed clause which was on the Notice Paper on Thursday 13th June.
May I, through you or your office, ask the Leader of the House whether some action can be taken on this matter? It is immensely unsatisfactory that back benchers should have to deal with unmarshalled roneoed amendments. They can be marshalled with a considerable amount of work. I am half way through doing it myself. If we are to have typewritten lists, may I ask that somebody from the Public Bill Office be available to advise on the pure mechanics of the marshalling? That is a matter that the person who produced the amendments today obviously had not considered. If there had been co-ordination between the Public Bill Office and whoever had to reproduce these amendments, the task of back benchers would have been made easier. May I ask that that point be considered in future should we find ourselves in the same unfortunate situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the only Bill before the House or its Committees. The trouble has been that many other sets of documents have had to be prepared. There would not have been time for what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Consumer Credit Bill Committee has also been affected. One-third of the amendments which I tabled on behalf of some of my hon. Friends as long ago as Friday of last week did not appear on the Notice Paper. Indeed, it was necessary to suspend our proceedings earlier than usual because of these difficulties. Would it be possible during these difficult times at least for those of us who table amendments to be given a copy of what has been tabled so that we may know where we are?

Mr. George Cunningham: I should like to make two points, Mr. Speaker.
First, I expect you are aware that your selection of amendments, which is a very long list, was not available to hon. Members until shortly after 2 o'clock today. It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to


prepare for a long series of discussions on complex amendments with that degree of notice—less than two hours—of the amendments which have been selected.
Secondly, I find it incredible that it should not be possible to have a marshalled list of amendments. I understand that it is not possible to have a printed list. However, typewriters and typists are available. If the House of Commons cannot do better than this, we are in no position to lecture the rest of the country about administrative competence.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House to look at this as a general problem. We must do better than this if we are to pretend to be a proper legislature doing our job.

Mr. Emery: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the difficulties, but marshalling is a matter of getting things in numerical order. The exact sequence does not affect the fact that the amendments are and have to be typed. There is no extra work in that. All we need is someone, with even the slightest knowledge of the procedure of the House, to ensure that they are typed in a certain order. If that cannot be done, perhaps hon. Members should offer to help. It is nonsense to proceed in this manner.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) regarding these difficulties. They are not confined only to this Bill and the Consumer Credit Bill. We had this difficulty on the Control of Pollution Bill this morning. Amendments did not arrive until the Committee was due to start. The amendments were completely unmarshalled, as with these other Bills. When we looked at the list of selected amendments we found that the numbering and pages differed from the amendments that we were given. We had to go through the exercise of adding the figure 30 to each amendment number on the selected schedule to make them tie up with the schedule of amendments that we were given. We found ourselves

in such confusion that the Chairman was obliged to adjourn the sittting at 11 o'clock for fifteen minutes to enable hon. Members, including the Chairman, to sort themselves out.
This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I urge the Leader of the House to look into this matter and to treat it with extreme urgency so that we may proceed with our business in as efficient a manner as possible.

Mr. James Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In addition to amendments not being in proper order or even printed, we now have the difficulty that HANSARD reports of both this House and Committee stages of Bills are falling behind. For the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill we now have the Committee HANSARD for last Tuesday morning but not for Tuesday afternoon or either of the Thursday sittings. We shall shortly be reporting the Bill to the House and the Committee HANSARD may not be available to the House in advance of the Report stage. That would be a totally unsatisfactory position for the House to get into. I do not know whether the emergency arrangements which are made to keep the House supplied with these important papers are working satisfactorily. I hope that the Lord President will look into the matter, because it is beginning to cause a great deal of concern.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I am extremely sorry that this difficulty should have arisen. It is due to industrial action which has been going on since 20th June by the composing operation staff in the parliamentary printing works. It is the kind of industrial action from which we have suffered time and again in the last few years. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not like this."] Indeed, exactly like this. Parliamentary and other papers are not available in their usual forms, but copies of the Order Paper and other documents essential for today's business have been made available in limited quantities in one form or another.
I understand that the proceedings in Committee on the Consumer Credit Bill had to stop this morning because the papers were not available. I very much regret that.
The amendments for today's business on Report of the Housing Bill are in the wrong order, and I regret that. However, I thank hon. Members for the sympathetic and good-natured way in which they have accepted the situation. I will look into it immediately and see what can be done to help. In the meantime, I assure the House that every effort is being made to resolve the dispute in order that the normal supply of printed matter may be resumed.

Sir John Hall: I am sure that the House as a whole recognises the problems facing the Leader of the House in view of the printing dispute. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have had this kind of dispute before. However, I cannot recall such confusion arising out of printing disputes on previous occasions.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Finance Bill Committee, where there are a large number of highly complicated amendments, to deal with its work because of the problem of tracing the amendments through in the form in which they are now presented. I support what was said by my hon. Friends. It should be possible to marshal the typed amendments in an order in which they can be easily identified and traced. We did that on previous occasions when we had similar problems. Why cannot we do it now?

Mr. Paul Channon: May I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, regardless of industrial difficulties, any amendments that have been tabled appear on the Notice Paper? The difficulty in the Consumer Credit Bill Committee this morning was that amendments that had been put down in good time by the Opposition did not appear on the Notice Paper. That was why the Committee had to adjourn. I cannot recall such a chaotic situation happening before.

Mr. Speaker: What has been said will no doubt be noted.
The Stationery Office is responsible for producing these lists of amendments. The departments within the House do the best they can to carry out a task which is not theirs to do. That is the reason why it has to be done in this way.
A complaint was made because the list of my selections was not ready by 2 o'clock. I had difficulty in making the selection and in obtaining the necessary documents to enable me to do so. We had a long meeting. We drafted the list in the most convenient form. We are all in a difficulty caused by this industrial dispute.

New Clause 10

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SELF-BUILD SOCIETIES

After section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 there shall be inserted the following section:—

Self-build societies

341A.—(1) Where a self-build society makes a claim in that behalf for any year or part of a year of assessment during which the society was approved for the purposes of this section, rent to which the society was approved for the purposes of this section, rent to which the society was entitled from its members for the year or part shall be disregarded for tax purposes.

(2) Where a claim under subsection (1) of this section has effect, any adjustment of the society's liability to tax which is required in consequence of the claim may be made by an assessment or by repayment or otherwise, as the case may require.

(3) Where a self-build society makes a claim in that behalf for an accounting period or part of an accounting period during which it was approved for the purposes of this section, the society shall be exempt from corporation tax on chargeable gains accruing to it in the accounting period or part thereof on the disposal of any land to a member of the society.

(4) References in this section to the approval of a self-build society are references to its approval by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall not approve a self-build society for the purposes of this section unless he is satisfied—
(a) that the society is, or is deemed to be, duly registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965; and
(b) that the society satisfies such other requirements as may be prescribed by or under regulations under subsection (6) below and will comply with such conditions as may for the time being so prescribed.

(5) An approval given for the purposes of this section shall have effect as from such date (whether before or after the giving of the approval) as may be specified by the Secretary of State and shall cease to have effect if revoked by him.

(6) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section; and a statutory instrument containing any such


regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.

(7) Section 42 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (procedure for making claims) shall not apply to a claim under this section, but such a claim shall be made to the inspector and shall be made not later than two years after the end of the year of assessment or accounting period to which, or to a part of which, it relates.

(8) Subject to subsection (9) below, no claim under this section shall have effect unless it is proved that during the year or accounting period, or part thereof, to which the claim relates—
(a) no land owned by the association was occupied, in whole or in part and whether solely or as joint occupier, by a person who was not, at the time of his occupation, a member of the association; and
(b) the association making the claim satisfies the condition specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above and has complied with the conditions prescribed under paragraph (b) of that subsection and for the time being in force;
and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, occupation by any other person in accordance with the will, or the provisions applicable on the intestacy, of a deceased member, shall be treated during the first six months after the death as if it were occupation by a member.

(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (8) above, where, on a claim under this section, the Board are satisfied that the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection are substantially complied with, they may direct that the claim shall have effect; but if, subsequently, information comes to the knowledge of the Board which satisfies them that the direction was not justified, they may revoke the direction and thereupon the liability of the society to tax for all relevant years or accounting periods shall be adjusted by the making of assessments or otherwise.

(10) A claim under this section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed by the Board.

(11) In this section:
self-build society" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1974; and
rent" includes any sums to which a self-build society is entitled in respect of the occupation of any of its land under a licence or otherwise."—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I express my sympathy with all hon. Gentlemen in the predicament in which we find ourselves, including expressing my sympathy to myself, since we on the Government Front Bench are

faced with the same difficulty as that which faces everyone else. If hon. Gentlemen feel that they are ill-prepared, perhaps they will accept that we are all in the same boat.
In moving new Clause 10 I would advise the House that this clause, by inserting a new Clause 341A into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, provides for self-build societies approved by the Secretary of State to obtain exemption from corporation tax on income from completed houses occupied by members and from tax on chargeable gains on transfer of the houses to members.
Self-build societies are housing associations set up by groups of people building their own houses. By their acting cooperatively, the work is facilitated. They gain some benefits which would not be available to them as individuals. Some operations requiring special skills not available within the group may be contracted out. A society almost invariably disbands when the houses are completed and occupied by the members.
Societies do not receive any of the subsidies available to housing associations providing accommodation for letting, nor have these societies been eligible for the benefits of the option mortgage subsidy such as co-ownership societies may receive if approved under Section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. Nor have self-build societies been eligible for tax relief on their mortgage loans on the cost of land and of building materials until the society dissolves and each member qualifies in his own right as an individual owner-occupier.
This has long been a subject of complaint. It was referred to in the evidence of the Cohen Report in 1970. This new clause is the first step towards putting self-builders on a better footing comparable with co-owners. It provides for the approval by the Secretary of State of self-build societies which comply with certain conditions to be established in regulations to be made.
Approved self-build societies will by the clause be exempt from corporation tax on income from members for land belonging to the company. Mostly this income will be from completed houses


occupied pending completion of the rest. The clause will also exempt approved societies from tax on chargeable gains arising on disposal of the houses to members.
Since the land is in effect owned by the same people before and after the transfer, corporately before and individually after, the point of transfer is an appropriate point at which to assess and to tax capital gains. It is intended to amend the Bill in another sense to provide that self-build societies approved under the clause shall be eligible to benefit from the option mortgage subsidy, putting them on the same footing as co-ownership societies.
I hope that with that brief explanation, the House will accept this ameliorative new clause.

Mr. Rossi: We welcome from this side of the House any help which can be given to self-build societies and any initiative in voluntary housing which the Government can give by way of subsidy or in this case by way of tax relief.
In his explanation the Minister drew an analogy with co-ownership. During the Committee stage there was a discussion concerning the difficulties in which co-ownership schemes are at the moment. I have not had an opportunity, for reasons we also discussed a few moments ago, to go through the Order Paper to see whether the Minister has dealt with co-ownership societies in a way in which we were hoping in Committee he would. Perhaps he could indicate before we leave this new clause whether he will be dealing with it in another place.

Mr. Kaufman: I should declare an interest. Since the Committee stage I have become a member of a co-ownership organisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that meets with the approval of hon. Gentlemen. I like to please people. Therefore I have a special interest in this, though I would not dream of allowing my special interest to influence what goes on inside the Department. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we have not produced anything yet. We are still engaged in discussions.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I ask one question of the Minister before he winds up this brief debate.
What is the present extent of the activities of self-build societies? How many have appeared? How many more does he expect to appear within the next year or so?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman would care to put that question on the Order Paper we shall try to obtain the information. We had not previously thought it necessary to obtain that information.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

REVENUE DEFICIT GRANTS FOR REGISTERED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, pay a grant (in this section referred to as a "revenue deficit grant") to a registered housing association, other than an association falling within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 18(1) above, if the association incurs a deficit on its annual revenue account for an accounting year of the association ending on or after 1st January, 1974.

(2) No revenue deficit grant shall be payable in respect of an accounting year of a registered housing association unless—
(a) an application in respect of that year is made by the association to the Secretary of State not later than the expiry of the period of 15 months beginning immediately after the end of that year and that application is approved by him; and
(b) the application is in such form and contains such information as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine; and
(c) the application is accompanied by the audited accounts of the association for the accounting year to which the application relates.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, for the purposes of this section, a registered housing association shall be treated as incurring a deficit on its annual revenue account for an accounting year of the association if—
(a) the expenditure of the association for that year which, in the opinon of the Secretary of State, is attributable to dwellings provided by the association and any related property and is reasonable and appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances, exceeds


(b) the income which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the association might reasonably be expected to receive in respect of those dwellings and any related property in that year, including any sums received or to be received in respect of that year by way of grant or subsidy under any enactment, other than this section,
and for this purpose expenditure and income shall be calculated in such manner as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, from time to time determine.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this section of so much of any deficit as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, arises by virtue of any such difference between income and expenditure as is specified in section 30(1) above.

(5) The revenue deficit grant payable to a registered housing association in respect of any accounting year shall be of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine in relation to that association but shall not be greater than the amount of the excess determined for that year under subsection (3) above.

(6) If he considers it appropriate to do so the Secretary of State may make payments on account of any revenue deficit grant which he considers is likely to become payable to a registered housing association in respect of any accounting year but, subject thereto, any such grant shall be paid in a single sum in respect of the accounting year to which it relates.

(7) No revenue deficit grant shall be paid before the operative date but applications for such a grant may be made before that date and such an application may be so made by a housing association notwithstanding that it is not then registered.

(8) In subsection (3) above "related property", in relation to dwellings provided by a housing association, means property of the association which is provided for the benefit of the persons occupying those dwellings.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: It is convenient at the same time to discuss new Clause 2—(Compensation to Housing Associations for Prevention by Law from raising rents)—and new Clause 5—(Houses unfit for human habitation).

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope I can show that the Government's new clause more than meets the requirements being sought by hon. Members as set out in the other two clauses and as were discussed in Committee.
The Government's new Clause 11 is introduced to fulfil an undertaking which

I gave in Standing Committee to deal with some of the financial problems of housing associations in regard to their existing housing stock as distinct from new projects, which are already covered in the Bill. The clause provides the Secretary of State with discretion to make a grant towards the annual revenue deficit of a registered housing association in respect of an accounting year ending on or after 1st January 1974.
In the Standing Committee I also gave an assurance that we were looking constructively and positively at the cost of service charges for central heating and related heating charges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a similar assurance to the conference of the National Federation of Housing Associations at a meeting subsequent to Standing Committee consideration of the Bill. We are still pursuing the feasibility of granting some relaxation of provisions in the rent freeze order, but if this proves to be difficult or impracticable and it takes too long, we shall certainly consider additional fuel costs as one of the grounds for making a revenue deficit grant as it is put forward in the new clause.
The calculation of the annual deficit will be determined by subsection (3) of the clause which relates to the expenditure and income on housing to the extent that it is considered reasonable as set out in the criteria. The grants will then be paid up to that amount. In describing the amount of grant to be paid, the wide discretion implicit in subsection (5) of the clause will enable income from other sources to be taken into account, where appropriate, in deciding what amount of grant should be paid.
Clause 28 provides for the main source of grants available to registered housing associations in the form of grants for new projects calculated to meet the deficits arising over the whole deficit starting from the fair rent base. These grant structures were decided on to enable housing associations to embark on the expansion of the voluntary housing movement called for by the Government's policies and accepted by all sides of the House.
The general movements in interest rates and other running costs coupled with restrictions on increases of rents by


virtue of the fair rent system and later the rents freeze are placing the financial stability of existing schemes in jeopardy. It has been represented and largely accepted that housing associations will be unable to play their future rôle successfully if they cannot start from a sound basis as regards the finances of their existing schemes. The transitional arrangements in Clause 33 will help in the main only those current schemes which are not substantially complete. Accordingly, the powers in the clause provide for a wide measure of discretion to be exercised in support of existing schemes which are running into deficit. The clause gives the Secretary of State a wide discretion whether to pay subsidy in a particular case and as to the amount in relation to the deficit.

4.0 p.m.

The grant is payable towards a deficit incurred on annual revenue account for any accounting year of the associations ending later than 1973. The deficit will be calculated in such a manner as the Secretary of State may determine. Although consideration will be given to the applications on their merit, the intention will be to pay grants related to identifiable losses because of specific causes beyond the control of associations, such as the rent freeze, unexpected rises in interest rates, rises in central heating charges and the like—matters of external cause rather than matters related to the management policies and competence of the associations.

I stressed in Committee that we wished to design a scheme which could pave the way towards relating more closely policies on subsidies for housing associations and policies on subsidies for local authority housing—that is, to pave the way to a more effective revenue deficit subsidy scheme than was under discussion in Committee. The clause is designed to achieve that objective.

Mr. Emery: In Committee we debated to some extent how far the deficit grants would have to go. Can the hon. Gentleman or his Department give any further information? Have they any estimate of how much would be involved overall in this deficit financing? It is important that we should know. Some inquiries must have been made to ensure that

there was the necessity to carry this through, further than the examples which the Opposition gave the Government in Committee.

Mr. Freeson: There could not be an estimate of that kind. Arguments were put forward on the matter not only in Committee but in the Department. We were aware, as a result of representations from individual housing associations and the National Federation of Housing Societies, that a number of associations were running into serious difficulties, for the kind of reasons I have given. The applications will be received only from registered housing associations and co-ownership schemes. Until we receive the applications and have arranged the grants, it will not be possible to make any calculation of the total sum carried by the Exchequer.

Mr. Rossi: We on this side of the House are most grateful to the Minister for responding so well to the arguments we advanced in Committee for urgent assistance to housing associations finding themselves running at a deficit because they were unable to increase their rents for various reasons, of which we know, and at the same time were having to meet rising costs—interest charges, central heating charges and so on.
The proposal we made in Committee is encompassed in our new Clause 2, which speaks very simply of the Secretary of State making grants by way of
a single lump sum or by annual payments to any registered housing association
operating existing schemes, to assist it to meet a financial deficit incurred
as a consequence of being prevented by law from raising their rent to meet increased costs and interest charges outside their control.
Having listened to the Minister, I am satisfied that he has met the points in our clause. His new Clause 11 is a more elaborate creature, dealing with matters of accounting, the year of account and the number of months within which the accounts must be rendered to the Secreary of State in order that the deficit grant may be calculated. Those are all administrative matters that the Government are best suited to deal with in detail. That is why we were unable to include them in our clause.
However, there are still one or two matters outstanding. I hope that the


Minister will give us an assurance that he will deal with the matter generously and not in a cheese-paring or niggardly manner.
We wish to see the voluntary housing movement flourishing and providing a much needed supply of rented accommodation for the people who are unable to qualify for one reason or another to go on to the housing waiting list. I have in mind particularly young married couples whom local authorities as a rule will not consider because they do not qualify under the points schemes that most local authorities operate.
One of the housing associations in that kind of difficulty is one that I mentioned in Committee. I mention it again because it gives the House an indication of the problem. The London and Quadrant Housing Trust, which operates in the Greater London area, and which has about 3,000 dwellings in the area, will be incurring a loss of a little over £250,000 a year because of its difficulties in bridging the deficit resulting from frozen rents and increased charges completely outside its control. We welcome the assistance that can be given to it and similar bodies doing valuable work throughout the country.
Many local authorities are providing a grant out of rate revenue to housing associations operating in their area to assist them, because most housing associations work on schemes in close collaboration with local authorities. In considering the deficit grant that will be paid to housing associations under new Clause 11, will the Minister take into account the grant that some local authorities are paying, or will he say that it may be entirely disregarded?
I shall not pursue new Clause 2.

Mr. George Cunningham: I wish to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for the forthcoming way in which he has responded to the representations from both sides in Committee on this point. I am sure that a number of housing associations, not least in the London area, will be safeguarded from going to the wall for the rest of this year because of the clause.

Mr. W. Benyon: I, too, warmly welcome what the Government have done, which will also be welcomed

by the whole of the voluntary housing movement, although when I telephoned it at lunch-time the National Federation of Housing Societies was no more aware of the clause than I had been a little earlier.
The Government are right to keep the provision as flexible as they can in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
I note the Minister's point about the register of housing associations. That raises a small matter. We do not know when the Bill will become law, but we hope that the registration procedure will be fairly rapid, because the first year in which the grant becomes available will end fairly shortly and the claims will then have to be made.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I associate myself with the remarks made concerning new Clause 11. I had intended to move new Clause 5, but in the light of the Government's new clause I no longer wish to do so.
Unless a procedure for registration is to start to operate soon—it is not yet clear how carefully it will operate and what the provisions will be—many housing associations will find themselves in difficulty.

Mr. Emery: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said in welcoming the new clause because it goes a long way to meeting the point which we wanted met at Committee stage. But if registration is suddenly introduced there would be a specific difficulty if a number of housing associations came forward at one particular time to register. In such circumstances there would be a delay.
I want an assurance from the Minister that he will make absolutely certain that where a housing association has indicated to the Government that it may wish to have some deficit financing through registration, that association shall take precedence over consideration of the registration of a housing association which is not claiming extra financial aid. I am trying here to ensure that some form of priority is established in the correct order. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that he will consider this point, and thus the Government will not have to be pressed later on this matter of priority.

Mr. Freeson: I do not expect that what I have to say will be so warmly welcomed so often in future, although I hope that there will be at least some further welcoming words during the proceedings.
I should like to consider the question of precedent relating to registration of housing associations which apply for grant under the system we propose. Off the cuff, I do not think that there will be a problem here because the system will operate retrospectively, going back over the previous year which has been subject to accounting. We shall be discussing the question of registration of housing associations a little later, but I do not think that it is likely that much time will be taken in carrying out registration. The kind of objectives which the registration scheme will have to meet will largely have to be met after registration has taken place. But I shall elaborate on this point when we come to it later. I do not foresee a problem here, but if necessary we shall discuss the matter with the Housing Corporation.
I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in welcoming the Government's new clause.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) urged that we should not treat housing associations in a niggardly fashion. I can give an absolute assurance on that. The Government have put forward the new clause in order to be as careful and as flexible as we can in handling the problem which we recognise housing associations have. We would not have introduced this proposal had we not intended to operate it in a thoroughly reasonable fashion. That is our general attitude towards the operation of what is proposed in the new clause.
I would have liked notice of one of the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, in reply to which I can only react in an off-the-cuff way at the moment. This relates to local authority grants given to some housing associations. I am aware of this matter. I was involved with some of those housing associations when I was in local government. But I do not believe that the point mentioned is likely to arise as a problem because the grant which the Secretary of State will be in a position to make to a housing association will be based on the deficits shown in the

accounts of the association for the preceding accounting year. Therefore, if the association is normally in receipt of a grant it will have received a grant and to that extent larger deficits will have been reduced.
The question of a future change in policy in this respect is for the local authority and the housing association involved. The Secretary of State would deal with the net result of the financing of the housing association at the end of the accounting year. We need not get involved here in the precise question of local authority grants.

Mr. Rossi: If we take a case of a local authority making a grant and the Secretary of State diminishing his deficiency grant by the amount of the local authority grant, side by side with a case where a local authority makes no grant and the Secretary of State then has to make up the whole of the deficit, there could be a situation in which indirectly the local authority was making a grant to the Secretary of State.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: It would hardly be the Secretary of State making the grant—rather it would be the taxpayers or the Exchequer. Much of the kind of net expenditure which local authorities carry on their own housing accounts in this and in other connections which on the face of it appears to be expenditure carried only by the rates is, at the end of the day, largely carried by the rate support grant.
Most of this is fitted into the calculation of the general rate support grant and therefore there is further assistance from the Exchequer to local authorities and to the taxpayer which is often overlooked when considering local authority housing accounts.
I stand by the broad interpretation I gave a few minutes ago. If the grant has been received there is therefore no deficit, or less deficit, and therefore there is less money to be made up by the discretionary grant from the Secretary of State. If in future years the grant from the local authority is withdrawn, whatever the agreement between the local authority and the housing association, the Secretary of State will have to take account of the accounting position presented to him.
However, I shall pursue this matter in some detail in my Department to ensure that there is no hiatus which could arise.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

PURCHASE OF HOUSES AND FLATS BY TENANTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

A local authority shall be bound to sell a house or flat which it owns to a tenant who makes a formal request to purchase it at a market price less a percentage reduction based on a formula related to the length of tenancy, but no request may be so made until the tenant has resided therein for a period of not less than seven years and the reduction shall represent 5 per cent. for each year after the third up to a maximum of 30 per cent., which figures may be subsequently amended by Order so as to increase the percentage; if the tenant, having so purchased, sells the house or flat subsequently within a period of 20 years, it shall be first offered to the local authority at a price which shall reflect the original purchase price increased by any improvements the tenant may have carried out and related to the current market price; but after twenty years, there shall be no further obligation upon the tenant to offer the property to the local authority.—[Mr. Michael Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new clause it will, I think, be for the convenience of the House to consider the two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), amendment (a), in line 1, leave out "local authority" and insert "private landlord" and amendment (b), leave out the first "it" and insert "he".

Mr. Morris: New Clause 15 was lodged within a few minutes of the end of the Committee proceedings. Before I explain the details of the new clause it would be appropriate to look at the principle behind it.
The new clause would make it mandatory on a local authority to sell flats or houses to sitting tenants. Hon. Members may question why such a new clause should be brought in at this time. Bearing in mind that there is increasing concern over rates, not least in my county of Northamptonshire, we should remind

ourselves of the principal purpose of local government in relation to housing. The prime function in this respect, in the view of members of the Opposition, is that local government should serve citizens and should not become a property owner at the citizens' expense. Any other philosophy would imply that the town hall was there to provide a profit motive and to put a return on the citizens' capital. We could not support such a proposition.
Many people would say that in theory there should be no need for local authorities to build houses for renting, but if we are to be realistic we must realise that ever since the end of the First World War private rented accommodation has become increasingly scarce. We must now acknowledge that, with certain exceptions, the age of the private landlord with rented accommodation is restricted.
We ought to be clear that the rôle of the local authority is to do for citizens those things which they cannot do for themselves. Therefore, it must be wrong if local authority housing became so influential that it so dominated the lives of the people living in its area that they would feel restricted and unable to move to other areas. That has happened in certain parts of the country. That situation is far worse than the tied cottage system which the House debated last week.
It is appropriate to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the clause. There must be at least five or six advantages to the tenants. The fundamental one is that this proposal would enable the tenant to become a member of the property-owing democracy, to become a member of his district and to put down his roots and take an active and constructive interest in the community. I suspect, and the evidence suggests, that he will feel that it is worth while making a little extra effort and adding a few extra trimmings to make the flat or house a home as opposed to a shell. He knows that this will benefit him. Not least, many people believe that, by having the chance to colour his own front door, a man is able to show his own identity.
Despite the ups and downs in the property market, owing one's own home is still the best hedge against inflation. It is wrong to deny this opportunity to


a large section of the people. Some who have been tenants for 30 or 40 years have had a lifelong liability, which they sometimes have to leave to a widow. It must make economic sense for those who wish to do so to be able to turn that liability into a sound asset.
With our complicated tax system, it must be in the interests of the House to encourage council tenants to take advantage of the reliefs available to owner-occupiers. The proposal would also enable younger people, who early in their married lives do not have the resources, to save and become home owners. Others who may not be so young may find the same possibility if their circumstances change.
In view of the discussion which has gone on for a long time, hon. Members may wonder whether there would be any advantages for local authorities in this proposal. I see some real ones, although they are not accepted by every local authority. It would remove the need for rent rebates and for subsidies on the houses sold. It would also remove the need to repair and maintain those houses. I suspect that no hon. Member really believes that his local authority is good at maintenance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, I do.''] There may be odd exceptions and I should be delighted to give way if the hon. Member wishes to elaborate. In the long run, this should lead to savings in staff as well.
But there is another financial element which was not so acute a few years ago. The great majority of the older properties that may be covered by the clause were financed at interest rates of 4 or 5 per cent. Today if a tenant takes the option to buy his property he will be paying a mortgage rate of 11½ per cent., so there is a financial gain there to the local authority. It will also have a capital gain, because the property was probably built pre-war or shortly after the war and is on the books at a written-down price. Despite any relevant levels of discount the absolute capital price would be considerably in excess of the book value. So there would be a financial incentive to local authorities in this area, too.
Local authorities of both political persuasions are selling council houses. The

majority are Conservative authorities, although we have some laggards who have not understood the benefits of this proposal, and there is a minority of Labour authorities which are still selling.
Clearly, it is important that anything done in this area should not adversely affect the remaining tenants who do not wish to purchase. The Secretary of State has explained how resources are stretched and there is a problem over rates. It must be right for local authorities to concentrate the available resources on those in need—single-parent families, the poor, the handicapped, the helpless and the homeless. It is in that context that the financial aspects should be considered. This is the primary rôle of local authorities and one that all hon. Members now accept. Local authorities rightly clear slums and develop areas, but they need to weigh up also whether it is not better to sell houses and concentrate resources on those in need.
There would also be an advantage to the nation. Every housing authority is still subsidised, and any reduction in those subsidies must help the nation. There is also a psychological point. One finds large numbers of people who, either as part of tenant co-operatives or otherwise, sincerely want to own their own homes. It must be in society's interests to encourage that trend.
Three disadvantages are often quoted—first, that it is against the local authority's interests to release property that it might want in future. If an authority knew that it wanted that property, it would be wrong to sell it—just as any legal search for private property would throw up difficulties—in which case the tenant should be offered an equivalent alternative property.
Second, it is claimed that a house sold will have to be replaced at today's prices or the price of the next three or four years, but this does not stand up on analysis. The very fact that a tenant wants to buy suggests that he would never move anyway—

Mr. George Cunningham: He may die.

Mr. Morris: The 20-year option on return for the local authority would cover that.
The third criticism is that the house is lost to society, particularly those who want to rent, and particularly for relets, which are about 2 per cent. of the national total of lettings. This is the only real disadvantage that can be listed. One must weigh the 2 per cent. relet disadvantage against the positive benefits that I have listed. This disadvantage would be weakened by what some might call the more restrictive provisions about the seven-year and 20-year periods. The ideal of a property-owning democracy is now within our grasp. Already over half the people are owner-occupiers.

4.30 p.m.

We have a real chance today in this Chamber to transform this concept for all, or a vast majority of, council tenants and for them to join in what so many of them want very much in their hearts. I suspect that very few of them if asked would want to remain part of the standardised, uniform system in our society. A majority want to be able to reflect their own creative abilities, their own individual characters in their own homes. Society is changing. Home and marriage are under a lot of pressure today, and I suspect that we should reflect very seriously whether we should not at this time at least give a lead to council tenants in our society by giving them the chance to own their own homes.

The question is: do we give this lead now, and do it, obviously, on an all-party basis, knowing that there are, up and down the country, local authorities on an all-party basis which believe it is right? Or do we reject it? I submit to the House that if we reject it we are putting our heads in the sand, because the property-owning democracy is coming sooner or later and it is right that this Parliament should give a lead so that people may create their own homes. I hope very much that the new clause will commend itself to both sides of the House.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have tabled an amendment to the proposed clause, in line 1, leave out 'local authority' and insert 'private landlord'.
I have no wish to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on this new clause but listening

to him I rather felt he was at least 20 years behind the times. I seem to recollect that he was at one time involved in an inner London borough not far from my constituency. I suggest to him that he is a long way out of touch with the situation certainly in inner London and in the borough in which he used to be involved. The trend is almost the exact opposite in inner London nowadays. The hon. Member should know that, far from council tenants or tenants of flats in inner London asking that the local authority should sell them the place in which they live, we have, certainly in my constituency, thousands of private tenants petitioning the local authority to buy their flats. The demand in the inner London area by private tenants is that the local authority should take them over.

Mr. Michael Morris: I was an alderman of the borough referred to by the hon. Member until only a few weeks ago. I thought I made it very clear in my speech that I was talking of the right of council tenants to purchase. I did not cover the question of private tenants asking local authorities to purchase their premises, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on that. But would he not agree that within the London boroughs there are large numbers of council tenants who believe that the way out for them is to remove the local authority and to replace it by a tenants' co-operative?

Mr. Stallard: No, I would not accept that, certainly not in the inner London boroughs, about which I know a certain amount having spent almost a quarter of a century in local government in inner London, so that I know almost as much about it as some hon. Members opposite. I have never ruled out the eventual participation in this field of local authorities. This will come up perhaps in the wider discussion, certainly not on this Bill, on tenants' and councils' participation generally in the field of home ownership and local authority housing. That is a much wider subject than the hon. Gentleman raises in his new clause and much wider than we can discuss in relation to this Bill.
For the purposes of this Bill and certainly as we see it for the foreseeable future in London, I suggest that the amendments I have put down are relevant


and almost the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the new clause could be related to them. I am suggesting that, instead of a local authority being bound to sell a house or flat, it would be far more progressive if the private landlord was bound to do so. This is not just a party political point. It is facing up to the real situation in inner London, where rented tenants, sitting tenants, controlled tenants, private tenants and all kinds of tenants are being ousted by many different means from accommodation in which they have lived for many years.
In a previous Parliament I tried to expose the problems of the "winklers", harassment and so on. Thousands of tenants have been moved from their homes by illegal and sometimes criminal activities. If the hon. Gentleman's views are anything to go by, those people would find themselves unable to get a council flat. They would find themselves thrown on to the market, where they could not possibly hope to get a mortgage or to purchase a house. So I would hope the hon. Gentleman would see the merit of the amendment to provide that in that situation a landlord should be bound to offer one of the sitting tenants or those in the house the right to purchase—and I accept his restrictions on that. The real need is to give those who are being forced out of inner London, and, indeed, out of London—forced to leave their homes, their jobs and the places they have worked in and known for many years—a chance to remain in London. One way of doing that is by accepting the amendment and forcing private landlords to sell their houses or flats.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he accept the view that, while it is undoubtedly true that in inner London and several other large conurbations, in great cities like Manchester, there are pressures which we all understand, there are many local government areas in large parts of the United Kingdom where this kind of new clause would be very beneficial and where tenants of council dwellings could purchase their houses without any bad effect and, indeed, with a very healthy effect on those areas?

Mr. Stallard: I accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who has just inter

vened. I said at the beginning that I did not rule out the possibility of just such a situation. But I see it in the context of no housing shortage. I do not think the sale of council houses could be envisaged while there are hundreds of thousands of people still on the waiting list. That would be premature. I could never envisage such a situation in inner London and other big conurbations while there remains the kind of shortage we have at present. It may well be that in areas where there is no housing shortage this could apply but it is certainly not the case in inner London. If there are such areas we certainly do not need a new clause in this Bill at this time to cover the point.
Eventually, I foresee the time when if there are many private tenants in inner London demanding that the council takes them over, discussions on participation will take place because of the immensity of the problem. One aspect, one element, in that may be some kind of co-ownership or co-operative form of home ownership; but we are a long way from that and this is not the Bill or the place to do it. I would have hoped that the House could accept the very modest amendment which makes sense of this new clause, certainly in inner London and the bigger conurbations; that is, if the new clause is essential anyway.

Mr. Emery: I shall intervene only briefly now because no doubt there will be a certain amount of debate on this issue, which we think is extremely important. The basic principle behind the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is supported by the Opposition Front Bench, although some of the details need to be looked at with care.
One of the basic principles for which the Conservative Party stands is that council tenants, with a few exceptions. who wish to purchase their dwellings should have the right to do so. The few exceptions are, for example, occupiers of special-type cottages for the use of park keepers and so on, or of special accommodation which has been specifically built for disabled people or for others with particular problems. We believe that every local authority should be willing to sell its properties to its tenants.
However, not every local authority is, or has been, so willing. I may add that this applies not only to Labour-controlled councils. Some independent-controlled councils in the West Country have consistently refused to sell their property. The opposition are, therefore, making the principle clear. The issue shows the difference of approach between Government and Opposition to the sale of council properties.
In Scotland, where I was yesterday, there is no attempt to encourage a person to stand on his own feet by owning his own home. The Labour Party is quite happy that the ordinary person should be able to turn to the Government and the local authorities to provide him with whatever he requires, particularly in housing. We, however, wish to do everything possible to encourage people to own that which is probably the greatest asset that the majority of our people ever have a chance of owning.
There have been several surveys in the past few months in different areas. For example, in the South of England, out of a sample of over 2,000 people 84 per cent, said that as long as it was financially possible they would like the chance to own their own home. In a major area of Scotland, where home ownership is not so usual, still 71 per cent. of those interviewed said that they would like the opportunity to own their own home.

Mr. Stallard: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I asked a number of Questions of the Conservative Government in the last Parliament about house prices. A one-bedroomed flat—a very modest dwelling—in my constituency was costing between £15,000 and £16,000. My simple question of the Conservative Government was, what were their plans to enable postmen or bus drivers to buy their own homes in inner London? Houses with two or three bedrooms cost between £25,000 and £30,000 in inner London.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. The Opposition are looking at the whole method of mortgage procedures to try to ensure that lower income groups are able to obtain mortgages. This is something which the Conservatives recognise most fully. However, if the hon. Gentleman propounds

the case in that way, I might ask him why a postman or a bus driver who happens to be living in a council dwelling should not be able to buy it if he wants to and can afford it. That is the question which the Labour Party has to answer. I believe, however, that the answer is that the Labour Party does not want council tenants to buy their own homes because it is not in its own best interests to see more and more council property being turned over to owner-occupation.

Mr. Stallard: Poppycock.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Emery: There is positive proof of the Labour Party's attitude in the April circular of the Department of the Environment, which set out specifically to discourage council house sales. That was made clear by the Secretary of State himself. There is no doubt of the way the Government are moving.
Let us look at the subsidy and tax aid given to someone moving into a three-bedroomed council house costing about £10,000 compared with the aid given to a person moving into a similar owner-occupied house. The State aid to the council tenant runs in the area—I say in the area "because I accept that some of the figures given may not be accurate—of £850 to £900 a year. The aid that goes to the person with a mortgage is in the area of £280 to £340 a year.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has taken those figures, no doubt, from the submission by the National Housebuilding Council to my Department. I hope that he will take it from me that the figure of £900 a year going to each local authority tenant of a new dwelling through rates and taxes, which is what is stated in that document, is very inaccurate.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he will tell the House what the true figure is. I said that the figure was in the area of £850 to £900 because I did not want to be accused of trying to mislead the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the exact figure.
By this new clause we are attempting to establish the basic principle that council tenants should, as a matter of right


and not as a matter of decision by the local authority, be able to purchase their own house. It is in order to encourage that thinking that I hope that hon. Members will debate fully the principles lying behind it. What the local council tenant wants to know is whether he has a chance of being able to buy the property in which he is living. Many council tenants improve the property by their own work. Why should they not be able to benefit from it? Why should they be permanently excluded from home ownership?
The basic principle of the new clause is right. But any scheme for the sale of council properties must be simple and easy to understand. It must not be in such a form as to put tenants off. I know the frustration which occurred in my constituency when a tenant asked to buy a council property. It took months to get a valuation, only to find that the deeds did not exist because the house was one of a number on a piece of land for which no deeds had previously been drawn up. This dragged on for 18 months, and then the local authority suddenly said "We had better have another valuation". The offer price was then suddenly upped by a matter of £2,000. That sort of thing cannot be right when dealing with council tenants.
Therefore, the scheme must be simple and capable of being quickly applied and brought about to the benefit of the tenant and not to the benefit of the local authority. It is the tenants of council property that the Opposition, by the new clause, want to look after.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I find some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) somewhat hypocritical in respect of the Conservative Party's so-called concern for the municipal tenants, in view of the attack made on such tenants' pockets by the previous administration in the Housing Finance Act, when the highest ever increases were forced on municipal tenants with some of the most punitive clauses that have ever been operated against local authorities.
Let me disabuse the House of some of the points made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). He gave the impression that council house tenants in overwhelming numbers were

waiting for the gun to go off so that they could cash in and take an option on this type of purchase. A study of applications by council tenants to purchase council houses shows that that proposition has no credibility. In some large Conservative-controlled authorities where schemes such as that proposed in the new clause were operated and a 30 per cent. maximum was applied, over three years, hardly anywhere did the number of applications reach above 5 per cent. of tenants.
I notice that the new clause says
to sell a house or flat.
I know of a large authority that had at the time 90,000 properties. I do not know of a case in which, even with such a large authority, there was one application from a tenant of a council flat to buy the flat. The only applications that were made were for the most desirable properties, which were being sold at a knock-down price. There was not one application to purchase by a tenant of a municipal flat in the authority which had 90,000 properties.
If this type of policy had been forced on local authorities such as that which I have mentioned, we could have ended up with the large local authorities remaining with the most undesirable properties—I use the word "undesirable guardedly—walk-up flats, three storeys high, which most of us who are interested in housing and social problems want to get rid of. No one wanted those flats. One could not have given them away.
It has been said that the new clause will help to ease the housing situation. But how can this be when most large authorities in conurbations have an ever-increasing waiting list? I am not talking about the London authorities, which can be adequately dealt with by hon. Members who represent London constituencies.
We ought not to be talking about disposing of council houses where there is a shortage. I am not against the sale of council houses when there are more houses than there are tenants who require them. That would be a logical thing to do. I am not against the sale of council houses where there is an abundance of them. But could any hon. Member show me a stress area in which a local authority can say that it has more council houses than it needs? For every three or four


families housed in council property, one finds another family on the waiting list, waiting for one of those properties. Most of the large authorities have between 20,000 and 30,000 families on their waiting lists—if one takes into account their slum clearance programmes as well.
It is said that the new clause would ameliorate the pressures on the taxpayer and the ratepayer. That is complete nonsense. Does the hon. Member for Northampton, South understand housing finance? Does he not know that every council house built, irrespective of whether one returns to the previous subsidy system that was introduced under the Housing Finance Act 1972, brings an added burden on the taxpayer and the ratepayer, a burden of ever-increasing dimensions? How can one justify disposing of property that was built at a lower cost, historically, and replacing it at a cost of about £10,000? That cost will not be £10,000 much longer at the present rate of escalation of costs. The proposition is complete nonsense.
It has been said that people will buy council houses and never move out of them once they become settled in their then privately-owned houses. But why do the national and local newspapers contain every day an abundance of advertisements for the average three-bedroomed semi-detached house for sale? That is the average house. How does that come about in a year in which we have seen the lowest building rate that we have ever had? Why are there thousands of family houses on the market for sale in the private sector? They are advertised as being for sale by people who want to move out of them. The people who move from council houses for various reasons, as a percentage of the population, are just as numerous as those who move out of houses in the private sector.
I can well understand the concern of the hon. Member for Honiton about council house tenants investing their money in improving their houses. As an ex-chairman of a large housing department in a local authority, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. But he did not say how many thousands of tenants in the private rented sector have to improve their houses without any option because private landlords will not

spend a halfpenny on doing that. The hon. Gentleman had no regard to that matter. When we are dealing with clearance orders in our constituencies, how many of us are met with comments such as "But, Mr. Dean, I have spent so many hundreds of pounds on improving my house, and the landlord will get any well-maintained payment or compensation. Under the law I do not get a halfpenny." Where is the concern for such people? The whole thing is based on hypocrisy.
In regard to selling houses at market value, it is obvious that some of the council houses built in the last 10 years were built to higher standards than their contemporaries in the private sector, which do not have to meet Parker Morris standards. If they were valued correctly, they would be infinitely more costly to buy than those built in the private sector. If one values them with a broad equation one finds that some of the demands in standards of structure, flooring and heating are 20 per cent. higher under Parker Morris for houses in the municipal sector than the demands imposed on the private sector. Houses built in the last 10 years in the private sector, two-bedroomed or three-bedroomed houses, are now being sold for £9,000 to £10,000. But the true costs of council houses would be 20 per cent. higher.
In the last attempt to sell council houses by some local authorities when they became Conservative controlled, I know of a house that was disposed of. It was valued at about £2,900. Because of the discount, the tenant obtained it for about £1,800 or £1,900. On the very day that the five-year covenant expired, that house was advertised for open sale and sold for nearly £9,000. No one can tell me that in that case the taxpayer and the ratepayer have not been rooked. That is what happened in one case about which I know. But in how many thousands of instances does this happen and not come to light?

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Member seems to be arguing from conflicting points of view. First he was complaining that the houses which were sold were the best and most attractive, and later he said that those which were sold were those which were built at an historically lower cost. He cannot have it both ways.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Member misunderstood what I said. A house built 12 months ago was built at an historically lower cost than one built today. With the current rate of inflation, all costs become historical. To make this provision compulsory would lead to all sorts of subterfuge to prevent the provision operating. I know of no one concerned with housing in the large conurbations who would accept this legislation willy-nilly. It would be diametrically opposed to the interests of the people on the waiting lists.
Some local authorities impose geographical restrictions on the allocation of housing, limiting it to people inside their own area or to people with suitable marital qualifications. If the list were completely open, there would be a further explosion of people who wanted to be rehoused by the authority which, in spite of its shortcomings and difficulties, would have an infinitely better record as a landlord for the lower paid than would anybody in the private sector. At the rate things are going, in a few years the private sector will no longer exist anyway.
I hope that the House will reject the clause because it is not in the best interests of the tenants. I only hope that if something along these lines is accepted it will provide that the local authority "may" and not "shall" comply, and shall retain its autonomy in these matters. Local authorities have had enough in the past of Governments making decisions and then ramming them down the authorities' throats. As a former local authority man I know that this would be one piece of legislation which would be more bitterly resented even than legislation passed by the previous Government, which is still being bitterly resented.

Mr. James Allason: . I first declare an interest as a landlord and property manager. My plea to the Government is not to be doctrinaire in their opposition to the sale of council houses. There is a close parallel here with the situation in the new towns. For many years both major parties refused to sell new town houses other than those which had been specially built for the purpose.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member appeals to the Government not to be doctrinaire. My response to that is to ask whether he has read the Government's circular on this matter. Is it doctrinaire to say "you may" or is it doctrinaire to say "you shall"?

Mr. Allason: The Minister has a fair point there, but the trouble is that that circular sought to discourage the sale by local authorities and as a result the supply has dried up.
In 1968 the Labour Government changed their policy on the sale of new town houses. They recognised that where a tenant wished to purchase it seemed unnecessary to stand in his way. I welcomed that, and it did not mean a great rush of people to buy their own houses, or that the new town authorities were left without houses to let. It meant that individuals who were house-proud and wanted to own the house into which they had put so much effort could do so.
Much the same situation applies to council houses. An agreement to sell does not result in a great flood of people to buy. Unfortunately in March the Government halted the sale of new town houses—even those built for sale. They did so because they were reviewing the whole policy. I cannot accept that permitting the sale would damage the fabric of an authority. It is only right to give the customer what he wants. It would not lead to a big loss because the house would be sold to those who planned to live in it anyway. There is a preemption provision lasting 20 years in the clause and the authority would not therefore lose the house except where the family lived in it for 20 years.
The responsibility for financing that house would pass from the authority to the family who would be prepared to take on the heavy burden. Why should we stop that? I appeal to the Government therefore to make it possible for every council house tenant to be able to buy his own house, and for this to apply to new town houses as well.
Many of the 17,000 of my constituents who are public authority tenants want to buy their homes, and many of them want to buy a flat, which disproves the suggestion by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) that because he


knew of no one who wanted to buy a flat, therefore no one wanted to buy a flat.

Mr. George Cunningham: I regret that the Opposition have seen fit to bring this subject up for debate. We had a run over the ground in Standing Committee. The subject does not appear in any part of the Bill as it stands. If the Opposition want to discuss it—and I do not deny that it is important—they should take a bit of their Supply time so that we can spend half a day on it without interrupting important consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Morris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's memory is not too hot. Surely he recalls that we made it clear in Standing Committee that we would not debate the matter in Committee but would accept the Ministers' appeals to be brief while giving notice that we would raise the matter on Report.

Mr. Cunningham: I am not suggesting that the Opposition did not give due notice. I say that they should not have raised the matter because there are better things to spend our time on today. On that argument I suppose I should sit down. but having heard what has been said in the debate it is impossible for me to remain silent, in spite of the excellent case advanced so well and so forcefully against the clause by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) directed himself exclusively to the sale of houses in new towns. That raises different issues as there has been a restrictive policy regarding the sale of new town houses. I should like to see some relaxation of that policy. However, the same considerations do not apply in many other parts of the country.
I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) who for many years had experience of inner London conditions as Leader of the Islington Borough Council, remarkably unreal. One would think, to listen to the hon. Gentleman, that there were thousands of council tenants who could afford the cost of their house or flat and who could get a mortgage to buy. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that such tenants were prevented from becoming owner-occupiers only by the resistance of the local authority to sell.
The hon. Gentleman should recall, it he has not supressed the memory—and I can well understand why he might do so—that when he was Leader of the Islington Borough Council it was the council's policy to sell council flats to any council tenant who wanted to buy them. I have forgotten the number of takers who came forward in response to that offer. I do not deny that there was a great deal of desire to take up the offer. However, when the figures were worked out, even on the most generous basis that the Conservatives in Islington could provide, it simply was not possible for the kind of people who were in those flats to afford the service of the loan that would have been required. As a result, not one flat changed hands in that way—not just no block of flats but not one individual flat.
We are up against the difficulty of interest rates. That is why council tenants are not moving from their flats into owner-occupied premises. No one is saying "You have become council tenants, you are for ever doomed to remain in council tenanted property. You may not move into the private sector." Council house tenants move into the private sector, of course, but they do not buy council flats because they are retained for those who cannot afford anything else or for those who for the time being have a requirement for mobility.

Sir R. Gower: Sir R. Gower rose—

Mr. Cunningham: I do not want to be too long and I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my few remarks. It has been said that the new clause would relieve the country of providing a subsidy through the Exchequer and the local authorities. It is suggested that the country would be relieved of the burden of subsidy if council property were sold, but the benefit of subsidy, which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) grossly distorted, falls upon owner-occupiers just as much as upon council tenants.
The hon. Member for Honiton trotted out a figure which I cannot believe he had considered for a moment. He suggested that a house costing £10,000 attracted a subsidy of approximately £1,000. At present rates of interest a £10,000 house would have an interest charge of approximately £1,100. On a 60 years basis, the additional capital


amortisation would be very low. The most that service charges could amount to would be approximately £1,200. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that with service charges of £1,200 the total subsidy, both local and Exchequer, could amount to anything in the region of £1,000?
5.15 p.m.
I wish that Opposition hon. Members would recall that there has been only one major policy initiative that has encouraged owner-occupation. We can encourage owner-occupation only by giving encouragement at the margin. There is nothing that we can do to encourage the company director to own his own house because he will do so whatever we do and whether or not we take away all tax relief. Whatever happens, the company director will still own his own house. If we want to encourage owner-occupation we must do so amongst those people who are at the margin who want to own their own property but who cannot afford to do so.
What was the policy initiative that was taken? The option mortgage scheme that was introduced by the Labour Government during 1964–70 is the only thing that has been done to encourage owner-occupation. The charge that we are ideologically opposed to owner-occupation does not bear a moment's serious consideration.

Mr. Freeson: In fact, the first move by any Government to assist local authorities in a move towards home ownership was by a Labour Government in the 1920s which introduced the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to encourage owner-occupation at the lower end of the market.

Mr. Cunningham: I am glad that it was a Labour Government not just in recent years but in an earlier period which gave such encouragement.
I suggest to Conservative hon. Members that it is necessary only to look at the local circumstances to decide whether it is desirable for a local authority to sell some of its rented accommodation. I can remember during a party conference at Blackpool a few years ago reading a local newspaper which reported that the highly Conservative local authority of Lytham St. Annes was in

the midst of a debate on this subject. The Conservative chairman of the housing committee said that he would resist to the last the selling of local authority accommodation because it would only mean that the authority would have to buy at a higher price as it would sell at a lower price.
I ask Conservative hon. Members to bear in mind the problems of inner London. If we were to sell council accommodation in inner London there would immediately be no effect. The people who are occupying council accommodation as tenants would continue to occupy it as owner-occupiers until they died or decided to move. At that stage the problem would arise. For example, the bus driver who bought a flat in inner London cannot be compelled to sell it to another bus driver. He would, of course, sell it to whoever was prepared to offer him the most money. Therefore, he would tend to sell the property to professional people moving into that sort of area.
It may be argued that social change within a population is desirable and that we should not impede social shift, but unless we have enough accommodation in the inner London area for bus drivers and those who make London work, the services of London will be in an even worse state than at present. That is a reason which is related to local circumstances which apply in my area and, for example, in the borough of Camden, which would make it highly irresponsible to sell off one unit of council accommodation.

Sir R. Gower: The new clause has my cordial support. I understand the point which has been made by some Government hon. Members that the extension of home ownership owes a good deal to the initiative of people from all parties. I accept that policies which have been initiated by successive administrations have had beneficial results. Further, I accept that there are local authorities of all parties, and dominated by various parties and by independents in various parts of the country, who support the principle of home ownership, and that there are other authorities of all parties which object to it or which oppose it in their practice.
Unfortunately the very tone of the speeches that we have heard from some


Government hon. Members suggests that the principle that we are now discussing is rather lower in their list of priorities than it is in my mind and the minds of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and Honiton (Mr. Emery), who expressed Front Bench support for the new clause. I believe that the policies of successive Governments since the end of the last war have led to an expansion of home ownership. This has been one of the best things that has happened in post-war years. It owes much to the initiative of many. But we still have a long way to go, because the proportion of home owners in the United Kingdom is lower than the proportion of home owners in other countries such as Canada and the United States.
If we are to get a variegated pattern of housing, if we are to inject a mixed pattern of housing into areas which are now wholly local authority owned we must follow this type of policy. I can take the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) to places in my constituency, and elsewhere, council estates which I know well, where some of the privately-owned houses can be identified because of their appearance. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) makes a noise suggesting disagreement. I could take him, and I will take him if he comes to my constituency, to places where some, not all, of the houses can be identified as being privately-owned. As soon as people acquire them they have an extra motive to improve them. They would be fools to do otherwise.
If I were living in rented accommodation of any kind, whether it was owned by an individual, a company or a local authority, I would have little incentive to spend money on its improvement. We cannot expect people living in rented accommodation to expend the same amount of energy and money, to use the same initiative and imagination on improvements, as some owner-occupiers naturally do. We should give a vast impetus to home ownership because in some parts of the country this process has not even begun. In others there has been only a modest response. This is understandable because to many people this idea is something new and different. They have not contemplated home ownership.
Since it became possible to purchase houses in this way in one part of my constituency I have received letters and petitions from constituents in the other parts who are not able to buy council houses. It is a matter of regret that there is not universal opportunity.
I accept that the amendment may not be perfect in format. I can see some objections beyond those which were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I do not necessarily accept that its universal application would be justifiable.
In the last Parliament during the passage of a housing measure I tabled an amendment which gave the Secretary of State the power to exempt an area of extreme stress if he deemed it advisable. On the whole, however, there may be little or no objection to the general principle that in most of the country, outside areas of extraordinary stress, tenants should have this right. I want to see more and more tenants owning the premises in which they live.
If I may comment on the amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, I would like to see tenants of private housing likewise acquiring ownership. In many cases they do so. The owners of those premises in recent years have been only too glad to get rid of them. I had only one or two very small premises of that kind left to me in a will and the first thing my brother and I did—we were joint beneficiaries—was to sell them to the tenants.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Can my hon. Friend tell me of a single case in which a tenant wants to buy out a private landlord but the private landlord does not want to sell.

Mr. George Cunningham: What?

Sir R. Gower: I agree with the inference of my hon. Friend. Most of the owners of houses which have been let for a long time are only too glad to sell on reasonable terms. In many cases they regard the property as a source of anxiety to them, something which produces a low rental income and a totally unforeseen repair bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider their earlier attitudes.
The Under-Secretary made a valid point in reply to my hon. Friend the


Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). He quoted from the White Paper and posed the question whether there should be compulsion or whether there should be permissive powers. I would not want to see compulsion. I would like it to be said that the council should give the tenant the choice. There would be no compulsion on the tenant to buy. We want the choice to reside with the tenant. It is better that the council should, in all except the most extraordinary circumstances, be obliged to give the tenant that option. Perhaps this will be but a modest addition to the means we have devised for extending home ownership. If we incorporate this provision in legislation it may be a long time before it makes an impact. Nevertheless it is right and proper that it should be done.
I hope Labour Members will not think that this is a bad thing but will see that it is a good thing and will support what my hon. Friend has in mind, namely that tenants of municipal dwellings should in most cases have the chance of acquiring the ownership of the home in which they have lived for most of their life.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that they can move away and acquire a home of their own elsewhere. He is saying in effect that such people can acquire homes only if they move away from an area, leaving all their friends. I want them to be able to buy a house in the neighbourhood in which they have always lived. In some parts of the country, by definition, that is a council house. I hope that the Government will accept the principle of the clause.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I declare an interest, although a very indirect one, in this clause in that I have advised the Royal Institute of British Architects on housing policy in the past and I continue to inform it about parliamentary affairs. I do not think this arises on this clause but perhaps this is the right moment to mention it. I find the debate quite extraordinary. Conservative Members have appeared to be alleging that the Minister and the Government are being dogmatic.
Yet, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, the new clause is the most dogmatic statement I have seen for some time:
A local authority shall be bound … no request may be so made until the tenant has

resided therein for a period of not less than seven years …".
If that is not dogmatic I do not know what is, especially coming from a party which in the last Parliament introduced legislation for local government reorganisation which, we were told, would give fuller responsibility to the local authorities for carrying out more of the functions put upon them. We were told that they would be bigger and they would be in a position to take bigger decisions. There would be less control from Whitehall. Yet this clause seems to impose new controls over local government housing policy.
If I may be somewhat parochial, I can demonstrate how the housing authorities in my area would be put in a very awkward position indeed if this clause were to be passed.
5.30 p.m.
We know of the severe housing shortage in central London and the difficulties with which housing authorities in central London are grappling. But it is not only the central areas of our cities that face the most chronic housing shortages. My own constituency, which is a rural area with small market towns and slightly larger industrial towns, has a long waiting list for council houses. The new district authority which came into being on 1st April has a waiting list of 1,800 people. My post bag—as many hon. Members who represent rural constituencies will also bear witness—is full of letters from deserving people who wish to be rehoused in council property.
At the same time in my Cornish constituency there is a large number of houses built by private enterprise for which buyers cannot be found. Yet I understand that some hon. Members are suggesting that preferential terms should be given to tenants of council houses who perhaps can afford to buy a house in the private sector.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Before we get too deep in Bodmin Moor, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Liberal Party is in favour of the principle of selling council houses?

Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come to that point.
This is the worst possible moment to put forward the clause, not only for


central London but for the rural areas. From my bitter personal experience I know that this is the worst possible moment to impose this new requirement on a local authority area such as mine. In the fullness of time we may want to move from the present permissive stage to a more mandatory stage. My party hopes that we shall take every step in our power to increase home ownership. It is extraordinary that Russia and Hungary have a higher proportion of owner-occupiers than does the United Kingdom. That is a condemnation of successive Governments, not merely of this Government, who have been in office for only three-and-a-half months.
The wrong way to go about it at this juncture is to impose on local authorities a requirement that they shall be bound to act in this way. That would be to the grave disadvantage of the private house-building industry. I am surprised that the usual advocates of that industry are not taking that point. Conservative Members who often speak for the housing industry must have been badly briefed if they think that private house builders would welcome a provision like this at a time when throughout the country there are endless houses awaiting buyers.
Are there so many council tenants marching on their town halls asking to buy their properties? Why should they? There is a falling market and, if they are lucky enough to get a mortgage, they do not want to buy a council fiat, they want to purchase on the open market which is at present comparatively good for the buyer. By all means let us move as fast as we can into a position where more people can purchase and own their own houses. I believe in the eventual aim of a property-owning democracy, but the option mortgage scheme is a much better way of achieving that result. It would be of great benefit if by some form of equity-linked system of mortgages tenants could begin to obtain part of the equity in their property rather than having to buy the property outright, as the clause proposes.
The clause is ill thought out and it is totally inappropriate at this moment in central city areas and many rural areas. If it is pressed to a vote, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and I will support the Government.

Mr. Freeson: I will make as unprovocative a speech as I can. It is about time that the Conservative Party dropped this gimmicky obsession. It is about six years since this idea came into Conservative Party policy and campaigning began in local and national elections. The opposition are putting to the House, not for the first time, a narrowly conceived view, which they have raised in town halls throughout the country. It is a view that does not take into account the question of tenure in all its forms, and does not consider how we should move forward to a variety of methods by which people may have stakes in their own homes. The Conservatives do not examine the situation on the ground and relate their policies to those situations. They are waving a tatty, worn banner.
Conservative policy does not bear any relation to the facts on the ground, nor has it taken into account what the general tenure pattern of housing should be. It takes no account of the various ideas which have been developing and which the Government are intent on studying with a view to action after the next election when we come back for a good long run of office. Even if we are in opposition we shall look at the matter constructively and not take up gimmicky ideas as a panacea for the country's housing problems. I will come back later to the current situation, which is at least partially the responsibility of the previous administration.
I want to look first at what is proposed, as it is written. In the light of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), he should vote with the Government on the clause. That might also be true of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). I understand that the vote on the clause will be pressed.
The basic purpose of the amendment which the Opposition wish to write into the law is to require that local authorities shall sell a dwelling, without qualification, to a tenant who has been in residence for at least seven years and who wishes to buy it. I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who asked why it was necessary to lay down that the tenant must have been in residence for seven years. There are circumstances in which it would be


proper for a local authority to sell council houses without laying down a statutory minimum period of residence. The statutory responsibility which the amendment seeks to place on local authorities is to be placed on them irrespective of local circumstances. Is that what the hon. Members for Barry and Hemel Hempstead want?

Mr. Allason: I made the point that the house would remain in the possession of the same family for the next 20 years whether it is council owned or owned by the tenant.

Mr. Freeson: I find it a little baffling to see in the clause reference to 20 years when all the information shows that the average mortgage runs from five to seven years. In the South the figure is five years and elsewhere it is seven years. I do not know why there should be so much talk of a period of 20 years.
I wish to make the much more important point that, whatever the redemption period, one has to try to meet the argument involving a mandatory policy. That policy overlooks the management aspect of local authority housing in areas where they need flexibility and movement of families, even within estates, to keep people on the move from slums, bad housing conditions and the like. One has only to go to any stress area to find a large number of vacancies being made available for families who come off waiting lists, from slums or from other bad housing conditions in any one area. This may involve two or three moves within an estate. However, once property is sold in a mandatory fashion in areas of stress, it will put managerial manacles on local authorities and will not solve the housing problem. Surely Conservatives do not believe that, irrespective of circumstances, in stress areas in the great cities a mandatory responsibility should be placed on local authorities, as the new clause envisages.
Much play has been made of the Government's doctrinaire attitude. I interrupted the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead to ask whether he had read the circular and whether he thought it doctrinaire to say to local authorities "You may" or to say "You shall". It was a rhetorical question and required no further comment.
If we look at Government policy, I am sure we shall agree that it is not doctrinaire. Circular 70/74 under the heading "Sale of Council Houses" starts by saying that we refute the view expressed by the previous Government
that local authorities should sell their houses indiscriminately whatever the local housing situation".
What is wrong with that statement? The circular continues:
The first duty of a local authority is to ensure an adequate supply of rented dwellings.
Does anybody refute that? It is surely the first duty—perhaps not the only duty—to ensure that there is an adequate supply. The circular then says:
In areas where there are substantial needs to be met for rented dwellings, as in the large cities, the Secretaries of State consider that it is generally wrong for local authorities to sell council houses.
Again, what we are saying is that where there are substantial needs for rented accommodation, surely it is wrong to sell the properties which one requires for one's needs. This refers to cases where there are unmet needs for rented accommodation. One can establish that situation only by looking at the facts on the ground, not by passing the mandatory requirement in the clause.
The circular makes a very important point and replies to the indiscriminate policy which was attempted, largely unsuccessfully, by the Tory Government. It says:
There may be areas where the sale of council houses into owner-occupation is appropriate, in order to provide a better housing balance, but this should not be done so as to reduce the provision of rented accommodation where there is an unmet demand.
What is wrong with that as a statement of fact?

Mr. Emery: Presumably one could claim that there is an unmet demand if there are only a few people—or even one—on a waiting list. This takes no account of the way in which many people in accommodation have no intention of moving to fill that unmet demand. Judging from questions asked across the Floor of the House in seeking to interpret the circular, we have the impression that there is strong pressure by the Government not to continue with sales.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is straining and stretching on this matter.


It is not good enough. That sort of statement does not contribute to honest debate. It is misleading, intentionally or otherwise, to members of the public and elected members of local authorities. It will mislead many people as to what Government policy is. I am referring to the policy contained in the document which we are sending out to local authorities. We ask people to read what we are saying. The circular was a carefully considered document. It was looked at by every Minister in detail, and much of it was written in language drafted by Ministers on the basis of the draft presented by officials at the request of Ministers.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose—

Mr. Freeson: I shall give way when I have completed this passage of my remarks. I am trying to establish what Government policy aims at doing, as distinct from what it is claimed to do as interpreted by Conservative spokesmen. There may be cases where the sale of council houses is appropriate. This may happen where there is no unmet demand to be satisfied. There may be areas where one needs a balance of provision. We want local authorities to ensure that there is such a balance. The circular says:
Indeed, there are many areas where there is an inadequate supply of rented accommodadation relative to the supply of owner-occupied houses.
That is particularly true when one looks at the geographical disposition of different kinds of tenures in inner and outer city areas.
It may be said that there is too much rented accommodation in some parts of the country. It is equally to be argued that in present circumstances there are parts of our cities where the balance is far too much in favour of owner-occupation to the disadvantage of people who cannot afford such accommodation and who at the same time cannot obtain decent rented accommodation.

Mr. Michael Morris: Mr. Michael Morris rose—

Mr. Freeson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have almost finished this passage of Government policy. This also requires a balanced policy by Government and local government. That is what we are seeking in the circular, as distinct from the indis

criminate policy which was pursued by the Conservative Government and which is now advocated by the Conservatives in opposition.
The circular continues:
… in addition to municipal rented dwellings local authorities should sponsor tenants' cooperatives as well as housing associations.
What is wrong with that as part of policy?
The Secretaries of State look to local authorities, in the exercise of their discretion"—
I emphasise the word "discretion", in other words their freedom—
in this matter, to adopt policies in accordance with those views.
I must make it clear that this envisages a balanced policy to be pursued by local authorities as distinct from a blanket indiscriminate policy, such as that which is being put to the House in the new clause.
Paragraph 36 of the circular, under the heading "Building for Sale", says:
… local authorities should build directly for owner-occupation where they can contribute usefully to meeting a demand for houses for sale. Similarly, local authorities should consider building for long lease to housing cooperatives. Such activities should not, however, prejudice local authorities in their primary duty to provide rented accommodation.
I maintain that that reflects, adequately or inadequately, a genuine attempt at a balanced policy in the matter of tenures. That is very different from what is now being put to the House. It is very different from the policy which, to a large extent I am glad to say, was pursued unsuccessfully by the previous administration.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman accused me of misleading the House. That is the last thing that I ever wish to do. He is propounding the view that local authority policy is still to encourage the sale of council houses. I ask him the direct question: if that is the policy, does he believe that it is succeeding? I suggest that the number of local authorities proceeding with council house sales today is very small compared with what was happening two years ago.

Mr. Freeson: I will not pursue all that was said by the hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to say that he was being deliberately misleading. 'That can be done inadvertently or as a result of incompetence as well as by deliberate intent.
On the specific matter that he raises, I have to disappoint him. It was during the last year of the Conservative administration that we saw a drop by 25 per cent.—

Mr. Emery: I asked about the position two years ago.

Mr. Freeson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer in my own way. We saw a drop of 25 per cent, in the number of council houses being sold, despite an increase in the number of local authorities wishing to sell them, according to my figures. If there has been a decline, it did not start during the three and a half months that we have been in office, whatever may be the future as a result of our more balanced policy. It started during the period in office of the previous administration.
It may be that, despite all the comings and goings in debate on this issue, we are wasting our time, whichever view we take, because there are bigger economic forces at play than these debates which will decide whether local authority dwellings are sold in the numbers that opposition supporters in their indiscriminate fashion wish to see sold.

Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the circular to which he referred laid the responsibility on the local authority to look at the housing shortage in its own area and to see whether there was a long housing list? I cannot understand how the main Opposition party can complain of the results of the housing policy of the previous administration. It collapsed last year and, rightly, local authorities do not find it sensible or profitable to sell off council houses.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman, in his own way, has made the very point that I was attempting to make. There are bigger forces at play here than the issues that we are debating in this amendment.

Mr. Michael Morris: Surely in this debate we are dealing with a matter of principle. It is the right of the tenant to buy. Today's market forces may well be against him but, by the time that this and other measures reach the statute

book, we hope that the position will have changed.
The hon. Gentleman talks about there being an inadequate balance. My constituency takes in a great many houses in new towns. It is all very well to send a plausible-sounding circular to new town corporations, but even new towns are restricted to 25 per cent. while the Government are thinking about the situation. Is not this once again a demonstration of the fact that, far from local authorities being allowed to do something, in this instance they are absolutely restricted and confined and, as a result, the opportunities for owner-occupation are reduced?

Mr. Freeson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confidence in the effect of this Government's policies on the housing market. I hope that we can produce an upturn in the market as rapidly as he forecasts. This Bill is due to become law within a matter of weeks. I should love to feel that our policies would produce success so rapidly.
As for the other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I stress that this is not a debate on a principle. We are not a debating society. We are debating a clause which the Opposition wish to see written into law. We must debate that clause and not just some principle about whether there should be more local authority houses sold, or whether there should be 25 per cent., 20 per cent., 35 per cent. or any other percentage of new town dwellings sold into owner-occupation. That is not at issue. This is a clause seeking to impose a mandatory duty to sell any or all local authority houses to people who ask to buy them.
For the reasons that I have given, this proposal is totally doctrinaire. It is obsessional. It is about time that the Tory Party dropped the subject and came to a more balanced view about housing policy. We might not have had such a disastrous inheritance if the previous administration had given as much attention to other aspects of local authority housing as they did to this one in the various circulars and near-directives that they sought to impose.
I could spend a great deal of time going through the clause point by point to indicate how technically it would be


nonsense in law, quite apart from the issue of policy that we are debating about its intent. It does not allow for any exemptions. It allows for no exceptions in the case of houses for the elderly and the disabled. There are no exclusions in the case of flats. Presumably local authorities could embark upon break-up and sale operations, which would not be very good for housing management in years to come. I could quote many instances to show that the clause would be writing a nonsense into the laws.

Mr. Costain: Surely the hon. Gentleman intends to comment on the amendment tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). He may need his help one day. What is his view about it?

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure whose help I am being offered today. I had by implication discussed the kind of policy underlying what my hon. Friend seeks to do. Since I am invited to make some further observations, I am glad to do so.
I said earlier that this Government were intent on looking at all aspects of tenure and the enfranchisement of tenants. I did not say that for debating purposes. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember the exchanges that we had from time to time about various aspects of the enfranchisement of tenants, leaseholders of flats and the like. I spoke with sincerity. We have already embarked upon a preliminary examination. We are examining the possibility of expanding in both the private and public sectors schemes of cooperative housing, which is a form of social ownership that I wish to see expanded. We are looking at various other aspects of tenure and enfranchisement. We intend to pursue this line rather than the narrow approach reflected in this clause.
It was in that spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) sought to change the character of the clause before us now. He placed priority where it should be placed if we are to have a greater variety of tenure.
Let us get more rented housing into social ownership in order to introduce greater variety of social ownership along the lines proposed by my hon. Friend and

which I put to the Committee upstairs when we debated the matter. We have been in office a few months. Give us another few months and we may be able to present proposals along those lines as the start of a new development in this sphere.
6.0 p.m.
I should like to underline the seriousness of the background against which we are looking at the clause and against which we must decide how to vote. We estimate that the number of privately rented dwellings in England and Wales is, and has been for several years, falling by about 100,000 or more per year. Indeed, the rate in the last two to three years may have been nearer 150,000 per year. These are not exact figures. In addition, rightly or wrongly, about 140,000 local authority dwellings have been sold out of the rented sector in the last three to five years.
Earlier, I explained our balanced policy on this matter. If we pursue a policy of pushing more housing out of the rented sector we shall drastically worsen the housing situation in city areas. The biggest single demand in stress areas now and for some time to come, as for some time past, as far as it is possible to make a policy projection, is and will be for reasonably rented accommodation for many people who in due course wish to go into the owner-occupier market but find it increasingly more difficult to do so because they cannot start married life in reasonably rented accommodation. It is no longer available. It has disappeared completely or the rents now being charged for private accommodation in inner city areas are so exorbitant as to drive these people into rooming houses and other multi-occupied accommodation that so many hon. Members representing such areas have been trying to find solutions for. Deliberately to embark on a policy to remove hundreds of thousands—maybe millions—of such dwellings out of the publicly rented sector into owner-occupation in an indiscriminate fashion, which is what the Opposition are advocating, would worsen the situation in those areas if that policy were successful.
The cutback and rundown in new starts—now at about 200,000 dwellings per year—the grave loss of rented accommodation particularly in stress areas in


recent years, the need to get a balance of accommodation instead of the polarisation that is going on in so many city areas, and the need to work out a greater variety of tenure in future in all spheres inevitably lead us to reject this mandatory requirement approach. If none of these issues is of sufficient concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite, may I implore them to accept that it would be wrong to place a mandatory instruction upon local authorities in place of their freedom to use their discretion to achieve the kind of balanced policy that the Government are pressing upon them. It is in the end a question of freedom for the local authorities to look at the facts and to pursue a balanced housing policy which we hope to enhance by initiatives that we shall take in future.

Mr. Rossi: I will be brief. I had not intended to intervene in the debate. However, it has become so wide-ranging that I felt I must make one or two points to clarify the Opposition's position.
First, I assert that we adhere to the principle of the sale of council houses as an important aspect of our housing policy. Secondly, we wish the sale of council houses to be on extremely generous terms to sitting tenants—possibly far more generous than anything contemplated hitherto.
We believe it necessary for the future to have closer regard to the element of compulsion as many local authorities merely pay lip service to the concept of the sale of council houses against the wishes of many council tenants. I accept that there must be safeguards in certain areas and possibly appeal machinery to the Secretary of State. However, these are the general principles that we wish to establish.
We wish to see the policy of the sale of council houses pursued. First, it will provide a return of capital resources which local authorities can use for further housing activities. Secondly, it is an opportunity for tenants, after years of paying rent to local authorities, to have something to show at the end for themselves and their families. At the moment a council tenant can go into occupation early in life, pay rent for the whole of

his life, and have nothing to show at the end. That is not a desirable situation.
The point has been made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) that whilst there are queues of people waiting to go on housing lists it is wrong to dispose of council properties. That argument completely disregards the facts of life of council accommodation. If a person goes off a council list into a council property he remains there until he is carried out in his coffin. The amount of casual vacancies is very limited.

Mr. Michael Morris: Mr. Michael Morris indicated assent.

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend, who used to chair the Islington Housing Committee, indicates his agreement. Experience shows that once a man becomes a council tenant he is always a council tenant and that that accommodation is frozen. It is effectively removed from the housing pool.
Therefore, we suggest that if that tenant is to live in council property for the rest of his life he should have the opportunity of acquiring and making it his own property. Indeed, the time may come when he says "I have lived in Islington for 30 years and paid my rent to the Islington Council. Now I should like to go to Worthing, but I cannot because I cannot afford to buy a bungalow there and I cannot get a transfer on to the Worthing housing list because it has its own problems. I am stuck in Islington and must spend the rest of my days here. However salubrious and pleasant Islington is, I should like to go to the seaside."
By giving people the opportunity of buying these properties for themselves we are also enabling them to save capital for the future. When they move the properties will come back and be available for others who want to live in the area. In addition, pride of possession, home ownership, means that people will look after the properties much better. Pride of possession also gives them greater dignity in life. It means that they are no longer the feudal tenants of their local political masters in the town halls.
That is why we wish to give people the opportunity of buying their homes if they possibly can.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 185 Noes 211.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[6.11 p.m.


Adley Robert
Hall, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Ancram, M.
Hannam, John
Osborn, John


Atkins. Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Henderson, J. S.B.(Dunbartonshire, E.)
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth
Higgins, Terence
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Banks, Robert
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Benyon, W.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Renton. Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Hunt, John
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std&amp;W'fd)
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jopling, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kilfedder, James A.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Channon, Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Silvester, Fred


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Cockcroft, John
Latham, Arthur (Melton)
Sproat, Iain


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Stanley, John


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Corrie, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stokes, John


Critchley, Julian
Loveridge, John
Stradling Thomas, John


Crowder, F. P.
Luce, Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dodsworth. Geoffrey
McCrindle, R. A.
Tebbit, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Eden. Rt. Hn. Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Townsend, C. D.


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Viggers, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Waddington, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Wiggln, Jerry


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)



Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Gurden, Harold
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.


Atkins, Ronald
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)


Bates, Alf
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport. N.)
Carter, Ray
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)




Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull,W)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rooker, J. W.


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, Edward


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Kaufman, Gerald
Sedgemore, Bryan


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Selby, Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Kerr, Russell
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Edge. Geoff
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minsterP'ton)
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
Lawson, George(Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Evans, John (Newton)
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Snape, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacCormack, Iain
Stallard, A. W.


Foot. Rt. Hn. Michael
McElhone, Frank
Steel, David


Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Madden, M. O. F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt. Hn. Erie G.


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watt, Hamish


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King
White, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Whitlock, William


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Horam, John
Pardoe, John
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Woodall, Alec


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woof, Robert


Huckfleld, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry


Ianner, Greville
Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

TRANSFER OF LAND IN HOUSING ACTION AREAS

(1) No conveyance or transfer of land in a housing action area shall operate to convey a legal estate and no contract for the sale of, or declaration of trust affecting such land shall be enforceable unless it shall be accompanied by a certificate signed on behalf of the local authority which has declared the housing action area that it does not itself wish to acquire such land.

(2) Unless the local authority concerned shall supply a certificate in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of this section relating to any land in a housing action

area within four weeks of being requested to do so by or on behalf of the owner then the owner or other person on his behalf may, by notice in writing served on the local authority at any time after the expiry of four weeks from the date of the request require the local authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with this section.—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The object of the clause is to give effect to provisions which originally appeared in the White Papers heralding the Conservative Government's Housing and Planning Bill, which were urged by my hon. Friends when that Bill was


debated in the House in February, and which we on this side of the House unanimously wished to see effected. I refer to provisions to ensure that the local authority has the right of preemption of housing in housing action areas.
The clause provides a legal mechanism under which no conveyance or transfer of land in a housing action area would operate to convey a legal estate unless
accompanied by a certificate signed on behalf of the local authority which has declared the housing action area that it does not itself wish to acquire such land.
The clause also contains a provision that if the local authority does not give such a certificate within four weeks the owner will be entitled to serve notice on the authority requiring it to purchase the land.
Although the Government suggested in Committee that an identical clause that I moved there contained defects, I believe, having re-read the debate in Committee, that the defects are not particularly serious and that the provision is workable. I had hoped to be able to withdraw the clause in favour of a Government amendment which would achieve the same objective.
It is common ground, certainly on our side of the House, that to hope that private landlords will be able to resolve the problems of housing stress areas would be to cry for the moon. It is not practicable for a private landlord, even a landlord with the best will in the world—and I accept that there are few such animals—to carry out improvement to reasonable standards of the poorest type of property, which is basically what we have in the areas that are likely to be housing action areas, and then to let the property at fair rents. Given the entire structure of our housing law, coupled with interest rates of 15 per cent. and the present grossly inflated property values, it is not possible. We should emphasise that the situation has been brought about by the immense inflation in the levels of property prices and the immense return that the owner of land can obtain from it. Given those prices and present interest rates it is impossible for the private landlord to provide good housing at a fair rent.
Therefore it is essential, as the Conservative Party acknowledged in its White

Paper, that a mechanism be devised as quickly as possible to ensure that land in housing action areas is brought into local authority or other socially responsible ownership quickly.
When the Government suggested in Committee that my new clause contained certain defects, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary first asked,
what property is to be subject to the scheme? … the clause covers all property transactions, but exemptions for owner-occupiers and for non-residential property are needed.
I do not accept that. I think that it is desirable that for all property in a housing action area that is being transferred, owner-occupied or otherwise, the local authority should have the option to purchase. It would be purchasing it at market value, and would not need to buy it if it did not want to. Whether the property is non-residential property or owner-occupied, it is desirable in those areas at least that the local authority should have the option to exercise the control that it needs to carry out the changes necessary in those areas.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend was
what rights of appeal will an owner who wishes to establish that his property is exempt have, and when will he be able to exercise them?
It may well be desirable that the Secretary of State should issue regulations as to the circumstances in which a local authority should normally issue certificates to the effect that it did not wish to acquire the premises. There may well be cases in which it would be desirable for local authorities not to acquire. Those cases can be outlined in regulations. In general, I can see no reason why the local authorities should not have the option. The owner's right would be to argue about the compensation he should receive.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked
what price will the authority pay to whom when it exercises the option?
It would have to be market value.
Fourthly, my hon. Friend asked
What additional easements, including rights of access and support, will the authority be able to acquire …?
But nobody proposing to sell property in a housing action area or anywhere else is selling it without the appropriate


easements of rights of access, otherwise there would be no purchaser for the property anyway.
Fifthly, my hon. Friend asked
what transfers and conveyances of property are to be covered? Should mortgages or gifts be excepted, since both involve conveyances?
I accept that it would be desirable for the Secretary of State in regulations to indicate that a local authority should normally give a certificate that it does not wish to acquire the property when the property is simply being tendered for mortgage.
Sixthly, there was the question
what is to be done in cases where the property is owned by a company and ownership changes by a sale of the equity and not by a conveyance?
That is an artificial problem. There are very few companies which own only one property, so that it would be transferred by transferring the shares. If the property is to be transferred to a single company the option provision would operate.
My hon. Friend next asked
Finally, what time limits, if any, are needed under subsection (2)?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th June 1974; c. 551–552.]
The time limit is set out in the clause.
My hon. Friend said in Committee that the Government proposed to introduce a notification system which would provide that anyone other than an owner-occupier disposing of an interest in housing accommodation in a housing action area would have to give notice to the local authority, which might, if it wished, use the compulsory purchase powers. My hon. Friends had to prepare the Bill in a very short time, and the drafting difficulties involved in setting up a suitable and satisfactory mechanism have been considerable. I do not accept that a simple notification provision, which would merely give the local authority the option to put into operation the fairly cumbrous machinery of compulsory purchase within four weeks, or whatever time limit is imposed, will be satisfactory.
I urge my hon. Friends, if they cannot accept the amendment, at least to use the opportunity of the debate on the clause to indicate to the House and to the public what they propose, how they hope

to make it effective, and the timing of their proposals.
6.30 p.m.
The Bill as it stands, and the whole concept of housing action areas are, without such a provision as I suggest, likely to be damaging rather than beneficial. The concept of housing action areas, if limited to concentration on improvement grants, is not likely to accelerate the process of increasing the supply of satisfactory rented accommodation. The housing action area concept will work only if the attention of public health officials, the legal staff of local authorities and others is concentrated on getting rented housing in which there is local authority or some other form of socially responsible ownership. Without that the whole structure of housing action areas is likely to make the situation worse rather than better.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the new clause, or, alternatively, to give an assurance that they will introduce in the House of Lords an amendment which will achieve the same object, though possibly more effectively.

Mr. Freeson: I wish I could satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), not just because he has once more spoken in favour of this particular policy but also because it is a policy which I would wish to see introduced.
If I were in a position to spell out what the Government would wish to do to achieve what is described as the first option purchase system it would be fairly certain that I would be able to introduce appropriate drafting of legislation either here or in the House of Lords, but I am not in such a position. This does not mean that we do not intend to take action when the opportunity arises. Indeed, we may wish to go much further than both the idea indicated in the previous Government's original White Paper on this matter and what my hon. Friend is rightly once more putting to the Government. However, to achieve the sort of system which he proposes would require considerable drafting of legislation, and that could not be achieved in the time available. I could go into detail—I shall do so, if required—to indicate the areas where problems arise, but perhaps I may illustrate the point usefully in a way in which


I did not illustrate it in Committee, although I may then have implied it.
I illustrate the point by referring to that aspect of policy which my hon. Friend has discussed to some extent—compulsory purchase powers. It is easy to state the proposition that local authorities should have compulsory purchase powers in certain circumstances as a means of achieving housing policy, or aspects of other policies, such as those involving school building and road construction. I was not, until so advised, aware that the basic Acts which provide for compulsory purchase contain, when taken together, about 50 sections and 15 schedules. All this is needed to establish a policy which could be stated in one sentence—a policy that there should be such power by local authorities to carry out their functions when authorised so to do by Ministers, whether in housing or in other matters.
Even now it is from time to time suggested—it was suggested in Committee, to a degree—that these powers, in certain circumstances, do not go far enough, and do not in certain stress areas meet the situation which local authorities face and which they should be tackling.
Perhaps what I have said will give some idea of the scale involved in seeking to draft legislation to achieve even the limited objective stated in the previous Government's original White Paper which led to their abortive Housing and Planning Bill. I make this point now to avoid having to go over some of the ground which I covered in Committee and to avoid having to repeat the arguments about the difficulties of achieving what we want to do within the time available if the Bill is to be enacted before the long Summer Recess.
I realise that I have tired some hon. Members by constantly repeating, formally in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in private discussions and conversations, my reference to this constraint of time, but I assure the House that it is a real constraint. I have not been using empty words when I have said that this is not the Bill which I would have wished to introduce, in the sense that it does not go anywhere near far enough along the road of establishing in legislation the basis of a more coherent and dynamic urban renewal policy in the stress areas of our cities.

The fact remains that I simply cannot get the drafting done in time.
My hon. Friend overstated the position in saying that if we do not have the first option system, which I say would take too long to prepare in order to get the Bill through before the long recess, the whole concept of housing action areas would collapse—

Mr. George Cunningham: Hear, hear.

Mr. Freeson: Since we have not yet tried this concept, surely we cannot be so vigorous in saying "Hear, hear".
I am the first to say that we need these powers and that even more drastic powers are needed in housing action areas, as well as in relation to other matters, but I do not accept that we cannot get a housing action policy to work if we do not have the first option purchase system introduced into the Bill at this stage.
Because of pressure of time the notification system which we are proposing will have to be introduced when the Bill goes to another place. But when the Bill returns to the House hon. Members will have an opportunity to examine this matter in detail, assuming, hopefully, that it has been approved in another place.
However, I can indicate at this stage, so that hon. Members may be aware of what is in our minds in preparing this more limited drafting legislation for another place, that the notification system which we intend to introduce will provide that anyone other than an owner-occupier disposing of an interest in housing accommodation in a housing at lion area or a safeguard area—whatever nomenclature is used—will have had to give notice to the local authority at least four weeks before the contract, and to have declared his present interest in the property.
Further, anyone giving a tenant notice to quit will likewise have to notify the authority within seven days of giving the notice. In either case, failure to notify or the giving of false information will be a summary offence punishable with a fine of up to £400. The authority thus warned would then be able to offer to buy the property or to make a compulsory purchase order, or indeed take action under any of its other powers, if it thought fit.
We would have preferred to introduce the necessary amendment relating to this in Committee, or on Report, but time has not permitted, and so we must await consideration of this in another place.
With regard to purchase policy, we must see it not solely in the context of the Bill but also in the context of the circular which was discussed earlier in the debate. A large part of that circular is devoted to indicating priority in areas in which the Government want local authorities to submit programmes to bring rented housing into social ownership. The circular was deliberately designed in that way—it was not done by chance when Ministers were drafting or redrafting parts of it. We deliberately phrased the circular so that it would line up with the prospects of the Bill's becoming law shortly and the establishment of housing action areas, further general improvement areas and larger priority safeguard areas, to which we have already referred. They will also have to be dealt with by amendment in another place, because of lack of drafting time.
So this is part of a broader policy. There is no policy resistance here. I want to do what we said, in opposition, we would do. The difficulty is simply mechanical. I have said that I might wish to go further than the first option purchase system, which is based on the original White Paper. I have in mind the prospect—I put it no more strongly—of relating this policy to some of the policy area that we discussed on the previous clause. The aim is to try to enfranchise groups of tenants in blocks of flats or groups of houses which landlords seek to sell over their heads, to allow them to form associations or co-operatives with the statutory right to purchase, backed up by local authorities.
This is the thinking. It has not been given legal form, or even thought through in policy terms. If this is a viable policy proposition it opens up wider prospects on drafting. I have stated my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend's plea for some indication of when we shall do this. It cannot be done in the Lords in this Bill, but the policy will be introduced. It has to be formulated and legislation drafted as part of another move down the road towards more effective

city policies in the older areas, on which the Bill is a useful measure but only a first step.
In this spirit, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is not necessary or desirable technically to have the new clause, and that we can continue to work on these ideas with the clear intention to introduce the more radical legislation that we both want.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: With some reluctance I shall adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. I emphasise that I do not accept that this proposal is not necessary or desirable, although I accept that it is not practicable at this stage. The time scale of getting the housing in housing action areas and much wider areas into municipal or housing association ownership is immensely important. This stock is diminishing fast. Every month that passes in which that stock is allowed to diminish means less and less housing to rent. However, with the constraints within which the Government are operating and in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

SHORTHOLD TENURE

(1)There shall be a form of lease to be known as "shorthold".

(2) A shorthold may be created only in respect of a property which is a dwelling separately assessable for rates.

(3) A shorthold may be created for any period of not less than three or more than seven years.

(4) The shorthold tenant, to be known as "the shortholder", shall enjoy security of tenure during the whole period of the shorthold, unless he fails to comply with the terms of the agreement creating the shorthold, but he shall give vacant possession at the expiry of the shorthold unless a new shorthold is created by agreement between the parties.

(5) If at the expiration of a shorthold of any property the landlord wishes to create a new shorthold for that property, he shall first offer the new shorthold to the sitting shortholder.

(6) The price of a shorthold shall be not more than the total sum which would be payable by the shortholder to the landlord if the shortholder held the premises for the period of the shorthold on payment of a fair rent determined at the beginning of the shorthold as described in the Housing Finance Act 1972.

(7) Payment in respect of a shorthold shall be made as follows:
(a) in part on entry as an initial capital sum, which shall not be more than half the total price, and
(b) the remainder in instalments, at such intervals as may be agreed by the parties.

(8) Responsibility for repairs to and maintenance of premises held by shorthold shall be:
(a) as regards the exterior of the premises with the landlord, and
(b) as regards the interior of the premises with the shortholder.—[Sir B. Rhys-Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 7—(Eligibility of the shortholder for benefits and allowances); new Clause 8—(Building for shorthold); new Clause 9—(Deposit on shorthold); and new Clause 16—(Approval of shorthold lease).

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It would be proper for me to declare an interest, in that I am the owner of a freehold property which, if the clauses were accepted, might be let partly on shorthold. The same applies to many freehold owners, so it is a commonplace point, but it is proper that I should make it.
The idea embodied in this series of clauses is not new by any means. I first suggested it in correspondence with the Minister's predecessor in August last year. I also published virtually the full particulars that appear in the clauses in an article that I was invited to write for the Sunday Times Business News in February. I mentioned it briefly on Second Reading and I have discussed the matter in considerable detail with the Building Societies Association and a number of experts in building and housing matters.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the term "shorthold"—which is not an invention of mine—and the concept require some consideration before all the ramifications can be appreciated. I trust that I shall not bore the House if I go briefly through the particulars incorporated in the new clauses, explaining why I have made these recommendations.
The proposal will, I hope, be seen to be non-partisan. I am seeking to benefit tenants looking for accommodation just as much as freeholders who may wish to let accommodation but feel frustrated under the existing law. The problems which the proposal is aimed to meet are numerous and widespread. They are not confined to inner London, although it was experience of conditions there which prompted me to get down to work on these proposals.
Many people, particularly with inflation and interest rates as they are, find that setting out to buy a house is a heavy burden. In trying to borrow the money and acquire a freehold over a term of years a couple are not only making arrangements to pay for their accommodation but are also acquiring an inflation-proof asset. This is what makes house purchase a heavy commitment.
Schemes have been considered to meet this point by means of shared purchase with building societies, so that, at the end of 10 or 20 years, say, the building society is part-owner or even half-owner of the premises and the occupants have had to scale only half the obstacle provided by the necessity to save money at the rate involved in acquiring a valuable asset.
The shorthold concept approaches the same problem slightly differently. It aims to provide people seeking accommodation with the sort of accommodation they want and the security they feel required to negotiate for, without putting them to the additional expense of acquiring an inflation-proof investment at the same time. It would make it possible for people seeking accommodation outside municipal accommodation, controlled or regulated tenancies, furnished lettings or the other means of obtaining accommodation—which many people find unsatisfactory—to have an alternative which is considerably cheaper than setting out to acquire a freehold.
Another of the problems that this proposal is designed to meet is the fact that so much of our accommodation is under-used. The census figures show that there were 675,880 empty dwellings in this country in 1971. That figure overstates the problem, in that many second homer will be included in the number which


would not come on to the market even if the shorthold facility were available. Some of those 675,000 empty houses belong to people who are away on holiday or who, for one reason or another, have made arrangements to sell their houses and the new occupants have not moved in.
The figure also understates the problem, however, because there is so much room for further conversion of existing properties to make them suitable for smaller families. Much of our accommodation in central London—indeed, this applies all over the country—was built at a time when family units were larger than they are now. In Kensington, particularly, we have a large number of houses which were designed for family units but which exceed the requirements of the normal-sized family today. So we have inherited many hundreds of thousands of houses in our old housing stock which require adaptation.
Some large houses and some large flats have been converted extremely satisfactorily and could be regarded as almost palatial in some parts of London. In other cases conversion has been adequate and there has been a good deal of stimulus to this by the application of conversion grants. But others, I am sorry to say, have been converted in a way that has turned them into appalling slums. That is a particular problem with which the Bill is designed to deal. But there still remain a very large number of properties which could be separated or divided better than they are now to help meet the shortage of accommodation.
One thinks, for instance, of the upper floors above a shop, which the shopkeeper dare not let because if at any time he had to sell up and realise the value of his freehold, the fact that he had let that upper part to a tenant with security of tenure would damage the value of his asset too much. So those other rooms tend to be used in a desolutory way for storage, or for nothing much. All over London one also sees basements not yet converted into satisfactory alternative rooms, and one can certainly think of rambling houses which could be divided more advantageously; or properties which are not used at all for long periods of time but which the owners dare not let

because they are afraid they would be unable to get vacant possession again should they need to do so at some time in the future.
I estimate that there might well be a million units of accommodation waiting for a reform of housing law of the kind I am proposing in these new clauses. The Government have taken a decision, rightly or wrongly, to introduce a Bill to enfranchise furnished tenants. I understand this is under discussion in another place and no doubt we shall have an opportunity of talking about its principles quite soon. This afternoon I do not want to discuss whether the Government are right or wrong in their thinking on the recommendations of the Francis Report, but I believe the Minister would agree that the Francis Committee was not wholy wrong in finding that if furnished tenants were enfranchised it might tend to restrict the availability of property for people looking for short-term lettings. So it behoves the Government, if they grasp that fact—as they surely must—to welcome any suggestion which would have the effect of widening the choice and making more rooms available, particularly in the form of small units.
We have to recognise as a national problem that the housing market can be crucial to people who have to leave one type of accommodation, where they have been subsidised by the local authority, the taxpayer or their landlord, and go out into the open market to try to find accommodation in the limited pool available. One has seen the very strong continuing agitation for a special London allowance to enable teachers and other categories of essential workers in the metropolis to compete with market forces for accommodation in inner London. But we have to recognise that although the arguments that are advanced are in many cases almost irrefutable, simply offering people more money with which to compete for the existing stock of accommodation is not a solution. It is only transferring the burden elsewhere. So if the Government are thinking, as I am sure they are, of raising London allowances substantially in the near future in order to help people to compete for accommodation, they must tell the House and the country how they are to provide the extra accommodation simultaneously. I do not think the problem can be solved


"at a stroke" by the kind of proposal that I am making, but I am confident it would be a substantial help.
The Housing Finance Act's benefits, in the private sector, for people who have to leave family freehold accommodation or local authority acommodation are generous, but the take-up has been disappointingly low. In due course one might expect that housing allowances would be paid virtually automatically, as part of the tax-credit system; but that is in the future and the need is to do something now. We have to help people who may not be ready to start buying a house but are looking for some reasonably settled form of accommodation where they can be sure where they stand and what their commitments are likely to be in the form of rent and so on.
I will now pick up points on which the House might reasonably ask me for an explanation, looking at the four clauses I have tabled. The object in the first subsection of new Clause 6 is to create a form of lease which will be halfway between one of the existing forms of short lease and a freehold tenure. It may well he said—I would not try to deny it—that to some extent the shorthold concept puts back the clock to Victorian times, when landlords were in a position of being able to work out with their tenants whatever arrangements they liked, without the interference of housing legislation. But I do not think politicians should ever use the word "back", and therefore I hope it will be seen by the House that we are here moving forward to devise something which, in effect, is entirely fresh.
Subsection (2) lays down that a short-hold property should be separately assessable for rates. I suggest this makes it easily definable under established practice—and local authorities would also be able to investigate what was going on, because they would be required to look at the property before the shorthold was created in order to make an assessment. I trust, therefore, that the definition I have adopted will commend itself.
In subsection (3) I have hit on the concept that the period of shorthold should be not less than three years and not more than seven. These are figures without any fundamental or final relevance, but I believe they make a practical basis for the proposal. If shortholds could be

created for periods of less than three years people might be tempted to enter into them lightheartedly, and the cost of setting up a mortgage is a factor to be taken into account. If a mortgage is required, a minimum three years' period is really quite proper.
The suggestion that the upper limit should be seven years merely takes note of the fact that landlords probably would not be ready to commit themselves for longer, and if longer leases were available tax problems might arise under another clause, to which I shall come later. Under subsection (4) I have emphasised that the shorthold tenant must give vacant possession at the expiry of the term. This is the most fundamental element in the proposal. I listened, as did the House, with the greatest interest when the Minister told us that the Government are initiating a study of the whole question of tenure and of the enfranchisement of tenants. This will be a valuable and interesting study, and I hope that the results will soon be put before the House.
The shorthold concept would largely collapse if the Government were to say, after shortholds had been created in any number, that they would seek to introduce legislation to change the character of the agreements so that a tenant would be able to claim permanency of tenure. That would have the effect of drying up the supply because, to the landlords, the advantage of certainty of obtaining vacancy at the end of the period would be lost. The whole scheme would fall in such circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is not already leaping ahead and thinking of the sort of speech he might make on the enfranchisement of shortholders. That would be self-defeating.
The object is to create a form of tenure akin to a freehold for a span of time agreed in advance between the parties. It would be proper, of course, that the sitting shortholder would be able to expect first refusal on the same property if the landlord decided to renew the shorthold after the end of the agreed period. That would put the shortholder on the same basis as a shopkeeper or a man who rents an office. The renewal procedure for commercial premises is established and satisfactory, and can be copied, I submit, in the case of a short-hold tenancy.
In subsection (6) I suggest that the basis of the rent payable should be a fair rent. Much mud has been thrown at the fair rent system, and some of it has stuck. I may have thrown some myself. But the system has been established long enough to be understood, and including it in my bundle of suggestions would mean avoiding any risk that the new form of tenure would be exploited because it is unfamiliar, or because landlords are too fast for the tenants, or in any other way. If the arrangement were linked to the established fair rent procedures it would be a valuable safeguard against abuse.
In subsection (7) I refer to the need for a part payment to be made on entry in the form of an initial capital sum which should not be more than half the total price. This is partly because I am pursuing the idea of creating a new form of tenure half way between leasehold and freehold and a freehold depends on an initial capital sum.
But there are better reasons why the landlords should be entitled to treat the initial down payment as a capital sum. One is to provide landlords with an incentive to enter into agreements of this kind. Much of the wasted accommodation we have could be brought on to the market if the landlords were given serious encouragement to do so. The fair rent is lower than the market rate and therefore would not in itself provide enough incentive.
Secondly, this proposal would cost nothing to the Treasury. The property at which the clause is aimed is not now yielding anything to revenue, because it is not being used and is not creating rent. Therefore even if the landlords got away with half the fair rent in the form of a capital sum, the Inland Revenue would not be losing but gaining, although not as much as it might.
In order to turn a lot of the property available into property which could be separately assessed for rates, there would be initial conversion costs, which I assume would be assisted by grants because the object is to prepare property for letting and not for sale. Not all landlords are in a position to finance conversion costs, and others are afraid to embark on hacking their property about, even in a small way, because they do not know what the

bill will amount to in the end. Therefore, there needs to be an incentive, and I have tried to devise a principle which is simply and readily comprehensible but other alternatives might well be better.
It is necessary to recognise that, in giving a shorthold of even four, five or seven years at a rent fixed at the start, in the inflationary conditions of today the landlord would be making a commitment and would need compensation. If half the payment were made in the form of a capital sum at the start, the landlord could take steps to protect himself to a certain extent from the effects of inflation. This would provide the necessary cover for granting a lease at a fixed rent for the whole period without the possibility of the rent being reviewed. We also have to recognise that the building societies must play a part if the scheme is to succeed. Their initial advance is of a capital nature, and it is right that that principle should be preserved right through the scheme, as far as possible.
Subsection (8) covers responsibility for repairs. It might be regarded as superfluous, because it would be possible for the parties to come to another agreement on different lines from what I propose in subsection (8). But a shorthold agreement should be easily recognisable as a standard form, and we want to avoid any misunderstanding in the negotiations as far as reasonably possible. I suggest, therefore, that the division of responsibility in subsection (8) could well be part of the total package.
I turn now to new Clause 7, dealing with the eligibility of shortholders for benefits and allowances. This is highly relevant. I am sure that my suggestion will be appreciated and welcomed by the House, because one of the objects of the proposal is to extend to tenants competing in the open market the benefits of the housing subsidies which they may be losing in changing their address.
The formula I have adopted includes provision that where the capital element is borrowed the interest will be part of the cost. The cost will end un in most cases as a weekly outlay, and even where the capital element is put up by the tenant himself he should be encouraged to save it up again. I think


it is perfectly proper that the whole of the rent should be taken into account in any calculations for the purposes of social security benefit and the allowances under the Housing Finance Act.
New Clause 8 concerns building for shorthold. It is a great pity, particularly for inner London, that builders are not getting on with the business of putting up flats for rent for regular letting as they did in the past. I would like to encourage them to do so, by giving them depreciation allowances of the same sort as they obtain when they put up commercial properties and by giving them regular break clauses in their leases, so that rent can be reassessed from time to time.
The fair rent is unlikely to be sufficient incentive to builders to put up blocks of flats to rent in the present circumstances, but I believe that the shorthold concept would encourage a number of builders to re-enter this market and so provide a sufficient supply of accommodation for rent of the sort that we scarcely see at all at the present time.
Finally, in new Clause 9, I deal with the question of deposit on shortholds. This is not an afterthought, because I have felt all along that we would have to include in the scheme some incentive to the tenant to give vacant possession at the expiry of the shorthold and not simply encourage him to fold his arms and say "I am staying here. What do you intend to do?" thereby over-running the period of the lease for a certain length of time.
The concept of a deposit also provides a safeguard to ensure compliance with the clauses of the shorthold, for instance, in regard to keeping the premises in reasonable condition. It also has openings for the provision of incentive schemes for subsequent house purchase. I should like to see tax concessions for the deposit so that it could grow rapidly with changes in the value of money, possibly by providing that it could be invested in specially favourable housing bonds, or be protected by some system of indexation. Then, at the end of the shorthold, a couple who had complied with their lease might find that they had some hundreds of pounds with which to move ahead and put down a deposit for a freehold house.
The question inevitably will arise of what will happen in the event of default during the term. For the landlord, the position is covered by the fact that a proportion of the rent would have been paid in advance in the form of the capital sum at the start, and the property, if vacated, would presumably be re-lettable, at least at the fair rent. Also, it would be possible in the event of the tenant getting into unexpected difficulties to commute the balance of the lump sum as rent and shorten the term of the agreement. There are tax implications in that which could readily be dealt with but would need attention.
Concerning the building society, if the society has put up the initial capital sum and the tenant then defaults on his payments, the commitment would not be more than half the total sum involved even at the start; and it would diminish with the passage of time. The surrender of the property would have a real value, and the system includes provision for payment of a deposit which, possibly by agreement between the building society and the freeholder, might become available to cover the building society's loss in the event of a default. The rights over the remaining period of the shorthold would be negotiable with the landlord, and the building society would certainly not find itself in a weak position in the majority of cases.
Finally, one might ask whether default is likely to be a frequent occurrence. I do not think that it would be, because the tenant would be eligible for social security benefits and allowances—and over the full cost and not only over the amount required by the building society; if the tenants' income were to fall suddenly, he would be eligible for more help. But where a tenant is paying a fair rent and, perhaps, loses his job, in the majority of cases I believe it would be possible for him to get his rent fully covered by an application for supplementary benefit. I hope, therefore, that default would not become a major problem.
There are a number of side effects on which I should prefer to touch only if other hon. Members raise them rather than risk boring the House now. But one point that one must recognise is that the introduction of the shorthold principle might tend to increase the price of houses


which are seen to be convertible. I myself do not feel that this would be disastrous. Large houses have a certain market now, and even the institutional types of building, or former hotels, have their prices and can, after all, be converted into long leaseholds at present.
The innovation that I am suggesting may seem an untried experiment or, to some hon. Members, it may seem so obvious that it is a perfectly natural development out of existing housing law. I believe that an innovation on these lines will have to come. I have drawn up the recommendations so that they should seem to grow organically out of the present housing law and the financial provisions affecting house purchase and house subsidies. But the details are certainly open to amendment and further study. What I am hoping is that the Minister will give the idea a welcome, and in sufficiently cordial terms for me to be able to stimulate further professional interest on the part of building societies, housing experts, accountants and others concerned with the problem.
The problem must be solved. If the Minister is willing to help this idea along, he will be doing something in the public interest. If, indeed, he chooses to take the idea under his wing and make it his own. I wish him all possible success and I will give him as much help as I can.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. David James: I have noted that the debate so far has tended to be substantially urban in character. The Minister has been referring to urban stress areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has also been speaking largely about urban situations. However, quite a large number of the million units of accommodation to be made available would be made in the country.
I do not mind telling the Minister that there would be many in Dorset, and I will tell him why. I am not now talking about the second house or the seaside cot-age, or anything emotive. Dorset is an agreeable part of the country in which to retire. A great number of serving officers come to Blandford, or Bulford, or one of the other Dorset camps, and decide to buy houses there for their old age. Schoolmasters may decide that is where they want to retire. A great many of them do.

There are parsons who decide that when they give up large livings they will move to small livings in Dorset. Businessmen with overseas appointments also come to this area. These people all have perfectly reputable reasons why they should have houses against their old age.
The trouble is that such people who acquire this type of property, furnished or unfurnished, are becoming increasingly reluctant to let it. To the extent that these properties remain empty, they deteriorate and others are done out of a house. I hope that the Minister will regard this as a bona fide proposal, as applicable to the country as it is to the urban situation, whereby very large numbers of people could be helped.
I can conclude my speech quickly by quoting a letter which I received only a couple of days ago. It is dated 12th June. The Minister could reasonably have expected me in courtesy to have sent him a copy of it previously, but he will know that the postal service is very bad at present. The letter has only just come to hand. The Minister will have a photostat of it tomorrow. I shall omit some names and one or two insults to the Labour Party, because they are irrelevant to the argument. The letter states:
Dear Mr. James,
For the last two and a half years I have been living with my two small children in a rented furnished cottage in a village in your constituency. This cottage is intended to be a retirement home for the present owner who is at the minute a parson in Weymouth, a very charming person who has been most kind to me. He tells me that he has no intention of wanting to come to live here himself for probably another five years. So far he has renewed the tenancy each year, but in the most recent renewal, although the agreement lets the house to me for one year, it contains a clause stating that after six months he can, if he wishes, give me one month's notice. When I queried this I was told that although they have no desire whatever to give me notice, they will be forced to do so if the proposed Socialist legislation on rented furnished accommodation becomes law. The cottage will then remain empty. I am at my wits' end as to what I shall be able to do to find further accommodation if this happens. It seems to me that other people who let furnished accommodation will act in the same way and I shall, therefore, be unable to find anywhere to live as there will be no more furnished accommodation available. The situation seems to be quite ludicrous, and the Bill will cause a lot of misery. It may have some application to large blocks of flats in industrial areas, owned by professional landlords"—

Mr. Freeson: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his quotation, and before my lion. Friend the Under-Secretary adds further comments when commenting on the proposal that has been the main subject of discussion so far, let me make it perfectly clear, in the light of the letter being quoted, that the Rent Bill now going through another place and due to come to this House shortly, dealing with furnished tenancies, specifically excludes owner-occupied houses, and a number of other exemptions are made. It also specifically excludes properties purchased for retirement purposes.

Mr. James: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that would include unfurnished premises as well?

Mr. Freeson: I have stated the general proposition, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which is more appropriate to another Bill, but in order to prevent any undue anxiety persisting and spreading around we must make it perfectly clear that we are not, in that Bill, including retirement homes and owner-occupied houses.

Mr. James: I am most indebted to the Minister. What he says will obviously enable me to ease my constituent's anxiety, but it does not seem to affect the validity of the letter as being an argument in support of the general proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.
New Clause 16, which stands in my name, is designed to provide an extra safeguard. It merely states that no short-hold lease would be valid without the prior approval of the county court. Owing to our peculiar printing arrangements, there is at the end of the clause a question mark which should be deleted. For the record, I believe that the "Mr. Barnes" who is alleged, according to the Order Paper, to be supporting new Clause 9 is myself, because there is no Member of that name in the House.

Mr. Emery: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for bringing forward in considerable detail what would normally be considered a fairly new concept in housing matters. To say that it is entirely new would be to go too far, but it certainly presents a new approach to problems which have been created by

certain legislation, rent control and security of tenure. My hon. Friend has a reputation for floating ideas. He and I have crossed swords on matters of audit boards for companies, but I hope that this proposal has greater success than certain of his other presentations to the House.
I am not certain that this is the appropriate Bill in which to bring forward this proposal, but I do not wish to be discouraging. The manner in which he put it before the House, saying that here were a number of ideas which were worthy of considerable further discussion between professional bodies and by the Government, amounted to a sensible and reasonable approach. I hope that the Government will treat it in that spirit and welcome it, as I have.
Dorset, North (Mr. James) in replying to

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction indicated the underlying principle of the proposal before us. He and I are on good terms, and I trust that he will not take it ill when I say that what he was annunciating, whether he was aware of it or not, was a wariness about the concept of security of tenure and its limiting effect upon the provision of tenancies. That is the principle which has come from the Opposition. One hon. Member, for example, was anxious to increase the supply of tenanted accommodation. For the Government, however, the clause has one irremediable flaw for anyone living in property which is not his own—the effect it has upon security of tenure.

Mr. James: I accept what the Minister says in the best possible spirit, but, in farming parlance, there is all the difference in the world between an agricultural tenancy, which has always rightly had security of tenure, and a grazing tenancy, which is merely an arrangement of convenience between friends. I do not see that one breaches the principle of the other.

Mr. Kaufman: The subject of a grazing tenancy leads me to pastures on to which I ought not stray in this debate.
I owe it to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) to comment seriously on what he put forward. I say with a certain amount of regret


that not only the clauses but the purposes behind them are unacceptable to the Government, not simply in detail but in principle. I say that with regret because everyone has his brain-child which he has nursed very carefully, and the detail into which the hon. Member went indicated that this was a concept that was dear to him. It is not acceptable to the Government.
It is the policy of the Government to bring the privately rented sector into social ownership as and when the funds to do so become available. Until then it is our policy to strengthen and extend the rights of tenants, as we are doing, for example, in the Rent Bill which is shortly to come before the House. We would not consider any measure which allowed landlords to contract out of the security of tenure provisions of rent legislation which under the hon. Member's proposal they would be able to do. Nor do we consider that additional subsidies, whether by grant or by tax concession, should go to property developers and private landlords.
It is the Government's policy, as shown in the Bill, to extend generous financial assistance to local authorities and to the voluntary housing movement. It is to them and not to the private developer that we look for more rented accommodation. Apart from those broad and fundamental objections in principle to what the hon. Member proposes, there are good reasons to doubt whether his scheme would have the effect he seeks. Under the law as it now stands—although I am glad to say that the situation will shortly change—it has been open to anyone to provide furnished rented accommodation for which a market rent or premium far in excess of what a capitalised fair rent would be can be charged. It has been possible to let this sort of accommodation on a short, fixed-term lease at the end of which there is no security and no access to the furnished rent tribunal. The financial position of the developer under such circumstances would be at least as favourable as his financial position under the scheme advanced by the hon. Member.
Figures provided by both Front Benches bear out that there have been no signs of the widespread provision of such accommodation with the liberty

available under what has so far been the law. The rented sector continues to decline and we therefore do not believe that what the hon. Member suggests would work in practice. I should be less than frank if I were to pretend that even if we thought it would work we would find it acceptable in principle. We believe this is not the way forward and I must ask the House not to accept the hon. Member's concept and the clauses which embody it

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am naturally disappointed that the Minister has not gone into the matter in greater detail because the rouse might have expected him to do so since the proposal has been before the Department for some time and was raise( by me on Second Reading. If the only objection of a practical kind which the Minister could put before us was that it has always been possible to let, as furnished accommodation, the properties which would be made available on shorthold tenure, the objection in practical terms is not very formidable.
I do not know whether the Minister has had experience of letting furnished accommodation, but it is by no means the sort of thing that everyone would wish to go in far. The evidence is before us. Anyone who canvasses extensively knows of the amount of property in all parts of the country which is not fully used. Therefore the objection that it might have been let unfurnished but that furnished sector lettings are in decline has little force. The Minister might well ask why it is that I landlords do not choose to go into furnished letting. If he were to do so, I think that he would come up with recommendations not dissimilar to mine.
What is most disappointing is that once again the Labour Party has taken a doctrinaire stand. It seems that it is not interested in potential tenants. It seems that it does not care about people looking for accommodation. All that it wants to do is to get people into municipal housing. It does not care about the interests of landlords because it regards them as the enemy in any event. It does not like any suggestion which might be of benefit to landlords, yet those who are hostile to landlords are hostile to better housing.
In turning down without further consideration the recommendation which I have made, the Labour Party has taken


a step which is against the public interest and which will be very unpopular. However, as I made it known to the Minister from the start that my object in putting the new clause before the House was to obtain a reaction—I hoped that it would encourage a constructive reaction—and not to force a Division, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion on this occasion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

RIGHT OF TENANT OF FLATS TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF LANDLORD'S COVENANTS

Where in any instrument creating a leasehold interest or tenancy of a flat comprising part of a flat, block (or house converted into flats) the landlord has covenanted for the benefit of more than one tenant of flats in the said block or house to carry out works of repair, replacement, redecoration or maintenance of the said block or house or any part thereof, including the common parts thereof, or where under the provisions of any statute such covenants are implied or similar obligations are imposed, any tenant entitled to enforce proceedings may in accordance with the rules of court to be made by the prescribed authorities be entitled to an order for the specific performance of such covenant by the landlord any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding '.—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The object of the clause is to give tenants, whether leasehold tenants, weekly tenants or periodical tenants, the right to obtain, at the discretion of the courts, specific performance of the obligation to repair which is contained in legislation or which is implied by statute. The clause differs from the one that was introduced in Committee in that there is an express reference to the repairing obligations implied by statute, particularly Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961.
It is the common experience of tenants of all kinds of property, particularly in recent years, that where the landlord has been running into financial difficulties, which may have become more acute with the collapse of the Stern empire, they have found it impossible to compel the landlord to carry out the repairing obligations which are contained in their leases. When

a tenant rents or buys a property from a landlord there is often contained within the agreement an undertaking by the landlord to carry out certain essential repairing obligations, yet when the time comes for those obligations to be put into effect it is frequently impossible to get the landlord to carry them out.
For 160 years, since the decision in Hill v. Barclay in 1810, it has been believed to be the law that a tenant is not able to obtain specific performance of the repairing covenants in a lease. That view was recently challenged in the case of Jeune v. Queens Cross Company Ltd., reported in 1973(3) All England Reports, page 97, in which Mr. Justice Pennycuick decided that the tenant could obtain an order for specific performance.
It may be said by my hon. Friend when he replies that in view of that decision it is not necessary to have a clause which provides for specific performance, the power already existing in law. However, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to two matters. First, in the case of Jeune the landlord did not put up an argument. In effect, it was a case which went by default. Of course, the tenant had to satisfy the judge under the law as it stood that the judge had the power to make the order that in fact he made. Nevertheless, the opposite argument was not presented to the judge and it is possible that in a different case or in different circumstances, and perhaps on appeal, a different decision would apply.
The learned judge emphasised that he made his decision with some reservations, but he ruled that the obligation was so clear, so precise and so specifically spelt out in the lease that it was an obligation which gave the tenant remedy in damages. That is not a satisfactory position in which to leave the law. It is desirable that we should make the law clear. We should emphasise to everyone who is a tenant and a beneficiary of a repairing obligation, whether by the terms of his lease or by the provisions of Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961 or in any other way, that he is entitled, subject to the overriding discretion of the court, to the remedy of specific performance.
Many blocks of flats are falling into disrepair. For example, there are many


lifts that do not work, there is faulty electrical apparatus falling into a dangerous state and there are gas pipes which need to be repaired and which are a source of danger to life and health. At present, no remedy is available to the tenant unless the decision in the case of Jeune is upheld on appeal. None of those matters is capable of being enforced against the landlord unless that case is upheld. The new Clause would provide an effective remedy, which would enable the courts, in their discretion, to make an order for specific performance. That is the only satisfactory remedy that is available. It would create a situation in which tenants who were suffering from the neglect of their premises by their landlord would be able to get them repaired.

Mr. Costain: There is a point that I would like the hon. Gentleman to clarify. In areas such as my constituency there are widows who have been left houses by their husbands and who have become landlords in the hope of getting some income from their property. Unfortunately, in the present situation that is not always possible. What would be the position under the new clause if, for example, an old lady of 82 could not carry out certain repairs, she being unable to find a builder to do them? What penalties would be inflicted on the old lady?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the great disadvantage of having old ladies of 82 carrying out the difficult task of providing housing accommodation. They could, of course, get out of their difficulties by transferring the accommodation to the local authority or to a housing association. The new clause relates to a legal obligation and, perhaps unwittingly, many old ladies have undertaken that obligation. It is an obligation that is expressed or implied in the contract that has been created or in law.
At present the tenant's remedy if the old lady does not carry out the repairs is to sue her for damages, but either she should get out before she is incapable of doing the job that is needed or she should transfer the accommodation. There is no reason why the tenant should be incapable of compelling the old lady to

repair the property. There is no reason why the landlord should not be compelled to carry out what is a legal obligation, and there is no reason why the courts should not have the power to compel him to do so.
The clause which was introduced in Committee in a slightly different form by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—who, unfortunately is not here—was, I understand, referred to the Law Officers. I hope that my hon. Friend will have had the report of the Law Officers and that he will be able to accept the new clause.

Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has said, this clause is in much the same terms as a new clause tabled by hon. Members in Committee. The purpose of the clause is to remove beyond doubt the ability of the courts to grant orders for specific performance and thus ensure that landlords can be compelled to carry out their repairing obligations. During the course of discussions in Committee I quoted the case of Jeune v Queens Cross Properties where a court had made such an order, and argued the case that no longer was it the fact in law that orders for specific performance could not be made by the courts.
However, during discussion it became clear that we were all sympathetic to the idea of enshrining in legislation the right of the court to make orders of this kind. I gave an undertaking that I would see what could be done to devise a Government amendment with that aim in view Unfortunately, it has not been possible for me to table such an amendment at this stage, but I am glad to be able to tell the House that instructions have been prepared for parliamentary counsel and I see no reason to doubt that a clause to meet the purposes set out here will be introduced in another place. In view of that assurance I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the clause.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: In view of that welcome assurance, I shall have pleasure in withdrawing the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The new schedule printed as Amendmen No. 85 on page 3 of the


Notice Paper was intended to be a new clause. Mr. Speaker has selected it to be moved as a new clause.

New Clause

PROVISIONS TO BE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 6 TO THE LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967.

Schedule 7

Reduction of Rateable Value in case of certain improvements

1.—(1) Where the tenant, or any previous tenant, has made or contributed to the cost of an improvement on the premises comprised in the tenancy and the improvement is one to which this Schedule applies, then, if the tenant serves on the landlord a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to agree to a reduction under this Schedule, their rateable value as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section one of this Act shall be reduced by such amount, if any, as may be agreed or determined in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.

(2) This Schedule applies to any improvement made by the execution of works amounting to structural alteration, extension or addition.

2.—(1) The amount of any such reduction may at any time be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant.

(2) Where, at the expiration of a period of paragraph 1 of this Schedule, any of the following matters has not ben agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant, that is to say,—
(a) whether the improvement specified in the notice is an improvement to which this Schedule applies;
(b) what works were involved in it;
(c) whether the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenancy has made it or contributed to its cost; and
(d) what proportion his contribution, if any, bears to the whole cost;
the county court may on the application of the tenant determine that matter, and any such determination shall be final and conclusive.

(3) An application under the last foregoing sub-paragraph must be made within six weeks from the expiration of the period mentioned therein or such longer time as the court may allow.

3.—(1) Where, after the service of a notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule, it is agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the county court—
(a) that the improvement specified in the notice is one to which this Schedule applies, and what works were involved in it; and
(b) that the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenancy has made it or contributed

to its cost, and, in the latter case, what proportion his contribution bears to the whole cost,
then if, at the expiration of a period of two weeks from the agreement or determination, it has not been agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant whether any or what reduction is to be made under this Schedule, and the tenant, within four weeks from the expiration of that period, makes an application to the valuation officer for a certificate under the next following sub-paragraph, that question shall be determined in accordance with the certificate unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree in writing.

(2) On any such application the valuation officer shall certify—
(a) whether or not the improvement has affected the rateable value on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and seventy-three (as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section one of this Act), of the hereditament of which the premises consist or, as the case may be, in which they are wholly or partly comprised, and
(b) if it has, the amount by which the rateable value would have been less if the improvement had not been made.

(3) An application for such a certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the name and address of the landlord, and the valuation officer shall send a copy of the certificate to the landlord.

(4) Where the amount of the reduction under this Schedule falls to be determined in accordance with such a certificate, it shall be equal to the amount specified in pursuance of head (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, but proportionately reduced in any case where a proportion only of the cost was contributed by the tenant or a previous tenant under the tenancy.

(5) Where at the time of an application for a certificate under this paragraph a proposal for an alteration in the valuation list relating to the hereditament is pending and the alteration would have effect from a date earlier than the second day of April, nineteen hundred and seventy-three, the valuation officer shall not issue the certificate until the proposal is settled.

FORM

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Notice by Tenant to Landlord of Tenants' Improvements affecting Rateable Value

Date……………

To……………, landlord of……………

1. (1) (A previous tenant of the above-mentioned premises under the tenancy) (made) (contributed to the cost of) the improvement(s) to the above mentioned premises particulars of which are set out in the First Schedule hereto (Note 1).

2. I hereby require you to agree to a reduction in the rateable value of the premises for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.

3. I propose that the rateable value shall be reduced to £ (Note 2).

4. If you do not agree to this reduction (Note 3), do you agree that—
(a) the improvement(s) (is) (are) (an) improvement(s) made by the execution of works amounting to the structural alteration or extension of the premises or a structural addition thereto;
(b) the works set out in the Second Schedule hereto were involved in the making of the improvement(s);
(c) (I) (A previous tenant under the tenancy) (made the improvement(s)) (contributed to the cost of the improvement(s);)
(d) the proportion of the cost borne by me or a previous tenant is ).

Signature of tenant……………

FIRST SCHEDULE Description of Improvement(s)

SECOND SCHEDULE Description of Works

Strike out words in square brackets if inapplicable.

Note 1

The improvement must be one made by the execution of works amounting to the structural alteration or extension of the premises or a structural addition thereto, e.g. the erection of a garage in the grounds.

Note 2

If the amount of the reduction is agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant, the amount of the reduced rateable value as so agreed will be substituted for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, for the rateable value on 1st April 1973.

Note 3

If the amount of the reduction is not agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant, the Valuation Officer will have to decide whether the improvement has affected the rateable value of the premises, and if so, what that value would have been had the improvement not been made. The name and address of the Valuation Officer can be obtained from the local authority. Before, however, an application is made to the Valuation Officer, the landlord and the tenant must try to agree in writing on the items mentioned at (a) to (d) of this paragraph, or such of those items as are material. If at the end of a period of six weeks after the service of this notice any of these items have not been agreed, the tenant may, within a further six weeks or such longer time as the court may allow, apply to the county court to settle the matter.

If it has either been agreed or determined by the county court that there has been an improvement of the kind described in Note 1 involving specified works, and that the improve

ment was carried out by the tenant or a previous tenant, or that the tenant or a previous tenant contributed to its cost, and in the latter case what proportion the contribution bears to the whole cost of the works, then, if within a period of two weeks after the agreement or determination of the county court the landlord and the tenant have still not agreed in writing whether any or what reduction is to be made, the tenant has a further four weeks in which to make are application in the statutory form to the Valuation Officer for a certificate as to whether or not the improvement has affected the rateable value, and if so, the amount by which that value would have been less if the improvement had not been made.

FORM

LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT, 1967

Application by Tenant to Valuation Officer for Certificate as to Reduction for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, in the Rateable Value of premises on account of Tenants' Improvements.

Date……………

To the Valuation Officer.

1. I am the tenant of and my landlord is of

2. It has been (agreed in writing between me and my landlord) (determined by the county court) that the improvement(s) specified in the First Schedule hereto (is an improvement) (are improvements) to which Schedule Seven to the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, applies, and that or a previous tenant under the tenancy made the improvement(s) or contributed to (its) (their) cost, and that the works specified in the Second Schedule hereto were involved in the improvement(s).

3. It has not been agreed between me and my landlord whether any or what reduction is to be made under said Schedule Seven in the rateable value of the premises for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, and I hereby make application to you for a certificate under paragraph 3(2) of the said Schedule Seven (Note 4).

Signature of Tenant…………

FIRST SCHEDULE Description of Improvement(s)

SECOND SCHEDULE Description of Works

Strike out words in square brackets if inapplicable.

Note 4. If the Valuation Officer cetrifies that the rateable value would have been less but for the improvement by the amounts mentioned in the certificate, the rateable value will be reduced by those amounts for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, except in the case where a proportion only of the cost was contributed by the tenant, in which case


the amounts of the reductions will be proportionately reduced accordingly"'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 86: In Clause 103, page 94, line 32, at end insert:
'(2) After subsection (4) of section 1 of that Act shall be inserted:—
(1) At any time the tenant may take the action provided in the Seventh Schedule to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 for his rateable value to be adjusted and in all such cases the agreed rateable value or that determined by the Court or District Valuer shall be the rateable for the purposes of this Act ".'

Mr. Rossi: May I first thank you, Mr. Thomas, for allowing this to be taken as a new clause, and to be taken so early in the evening, so that due note can be taken publicly of its provisions. That would not be the case if it were to be taken later when we are considering Clause 103.
This clause is consequential upon another amendment successfully moved by the Opposition in Committee. It was an amendment which was, surprisingly, resisted by the Government who suffered a defeat. The defeat passed unnoticed in the world outside. That was surprising because this is a matter which will be of enormous importance to thousands of leaseholders.
What has happened as a result of the amendment to Clause 103 is that the holder of a long lease at a low rent will be able to buy his freehold or obtain an extension of his lease for 50 years if the rateable value of his property is £1,500 or less in the Greater London area, or £750 or less in the rest of the United Kingdom, and provided that the lease was granted before 23rd March 1965. Where the lease was granted after that date, then for the rateable values I have mentioned there were substituted £1,000 for Greater London and £500 for places outside Greater London.
That is a great extension of the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where the rateable values are £400 and £200 respectively. The defeat of the Government in Committee

echoed a defeat they suffered on similar lines in Committee in 1967. On that occasion the Government on Report deleted the amendment. I am happy to see that on this occasion the Government, seeing the odium that was heaped on their head on the last occasion, have decided not to remove the amendment voted in against their wishes in Committee.
7.45 p.m.
This clause could not be dealt with in Committee, although it was laid in a more truncated form, because the successful amendment so altered Clause 103 that the words which this amendment sought to alter had disappeared. Therefore, the Chair had to rule that it was not possible to consider the amendment.
It is because of that that I move this clause now, the effect of which is to give a further benefit to leaseholders. Experience has shown that it has happened that leaseholders have carried out improvements to their properties, such as the building of a garage, an extension or the carrying out of a conversion, the result of which has been to increase the rateable value of the property.
If that rateable value was near to the ceiling beyond which they could not enfranchise, those improvements often took such properties over the line, and people found that by spending their own money on leasehold property they had disfranchised themselves. What we seek to do is to correct that situation by borrowing from a useful precedent—the Fifth Schedule to the 1957 Rent Act.
That schedule—it has now been repealed and appears in another form—when it was law related to tenants claiming security of tenure. There again, tenants in accommodation below certain rateable values are entitled to claim security of tenure and cannot be made to go simply on a notice to quit. The situation arose of tenants carrying out improvements to property and finding that they were taking the rateable value of the property over the security of the tenure limit, thus losing security of tenure by spending their own money.
I have borrowed heavily from the rule laid down in the Rent Act, aimed at protecting tenants and enabling them to


maintain security of tenure, in this attempt to protect leaseholders so that they may remain within rateable value limits even though they may spend money on the property they occupy.
The clause provides that
Where the tenant, or any previous tenant, has … contributed to the cost of an improvement on the premises
then the tenant may serve on the landlord a notice in the prescribed form. There is a prescribed form, which follows closely the form used in the Rent Act. The tenant serves that form on the landlord, requiring him to agree to a reduction of the rateable value that has been occasioned by the improvement work being carried out. Where, after a period of six weeks has elapsed and agreement has not been reached between the landlord and the tenant, the tenant has the right to go to the county court to determine whether improvements were carried out, what work was involved, and what was the proportion of the cost, the county court will answer those questions.
Taking the situation either when an agreement has been reached in writing between the landlord and tenant as to the improvements that have been carried out, or when a figure has been fixed by a county court in the absence of an agreement, the tenant then goes with the documentation to the valuation officer. The valuation officer is the officer who fixes rateable values, and he will certify the extent to which the rateable value has been affected by the improvements which have been carried out. For the purposes of enranchisement, the certified amount of rateable value is deducted from the increased rateable value and the tenant is not disfranchised by virtue of the value that he has added to the property by the work that he has himself carried out.
I hope that the House will agree that this is a long-required reform. It is a fair concept that a tenant or a leaseholder should not disfranchise himself by carrying out improvements to the property at his own expense. I have borrowed heavily on precedent in a similar situation, and I hope, therefore, that the amendment is technically correct. I trust that it commends itself to the House.

The Under Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will not mind if I chide him gently at the image of the Opposition parading as leasehold reformers. I had the privilege of being associated with the Leasehold Reform Bill in 1967 and there was no greater campaigner than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the issue. In the debates on the Leasehold Reform Bill in 1967 we heard from the Opposition terms such as "confiscation", "near Communism" and "the destruction of the sacrosanct law of contract". Yet the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box today and says "We are now the real leasehold reformers, we are the champions of the leaseholders' cause".

Mr. Rossi: There are two aspects to this question. First, there is the universatility of the right to enfranchise and, secondly, there are the terms upon which enfranchisement should take place. There was never any disagreement on the Opposition side of the Committee on the universality of the concept. The matter was carried on a Division in Committee, the whole of the Opposition side being for universality. Virtually the whole of the Conservative Party voted for that principle when the Labour Party tried to do some thing different. Where we disagreed was on the price terms. We felt that the formula for the price was wrong, and we still think so, because it causes a distortion at the top end of the market. That is why we have not gone beyond £1,500 and £750.

Mr. Rowlands: Now it is emerging. During the whole time when the Conservatives were in office neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other member of the Government moved an amendment to alter the terms of compensation or the price mechanism under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. It ill behoves Conservatives to speak now as champions of leasehold reform and to say that they want universal application but that they do not believe in the terms of compensation under the 1967 Act.
The hon. Member for Hornsey said that the provisions applied to a certain number of leaseholders but he did not explain precisely who they were and did not give specific examples. He cannot


hide behind a shroud and say that he supports the principle of universality but dislikes the confiscatory provisions of the 1967 Act because neither he nor any other member of the Government at that time attempted to alter the compensation terms of the Leasehold Reform Bill. The Opposition are moving this amendment in the full knowledge that the terms of compensation, which were called "confiscatory" and "near Communism" are still in operation.
There was some measure of back-bench consensus on leasehold reform in 1967, to which the hon. Gentleman was party, but he had ample time between 1970 and 1974 to extend the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act. He had ample chance to do so on the Housing and Planning Bill which was the precursor of this Bill. No such amendments appeared and no such amendments were carried in Committee. It is therefore improper for the hon. Gentleman to talk in those terms from the Dispatch Box. Had he moved an amendment to this effect in Committee what he said might have been more acceptable.
As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, any improvement that has been carried out since 1965 which might increase the rateable value of a property has absolutely no effect on the right of enfranchisement. If the property were below the rateable value specified in the Act in 1965 it does not matter a jot what improvements have been made since and what enhancement of the rateable value has occurred. I am under the impression that the hon. Gentleman is a little confused on that issue.
If the hon. Gentleman is talking about improvements carried out before March 1965 and which before that date established rateable value limits on properties which disqualified them in 1965, I can deal with that, but if he is talking about an improvement paid for out of the lease-holder's own pocket after 1965, that does not disfranchise the leaseholder.

Mr. Rossi: If the wording of the amendment is defective one would, of course, wish to see it improved. The intention is that wherever and whenever any work is carried out by a leaseholder, the result of which is to increase the rateable value of his property, that increase shall be disregarded for the purpose of

enfranchisement. Paragraph 3 (2) reads as follows:
On any such application the valuation officer shall certify—
(a) whether or not the improvement has affected the rateable value on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and seventy three.
That is the date of the latest valuation list.
Perhaps the Minister is harking back to an amendment which we tabled in Committee in which we referred in specific terms to the Rent Act 1957 and the effect that the wording of the schedule in that Act had on the Leasehold Reform Act. Here we have brought the schedule up to date by referring to the current valuation list and any improvements carried out that affect that list.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that most leaseholders are more sensible than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. He suggests that a leaseholder interested in enfranchisement would carry out improvements to the property before enfranchising, thereby taking his property outside the terms of the provisions of the Act. It would be far more logical for a leaseholder who intends to carry out certain improvements which may increase the rateable value and thereby take him outside the scope of the Act first to enfranchise himself.
If the hon. Gentleman is considering the matter in a futuristic sense, almost inevitably the householder would enfranchise first and improve afterwards. He would have great difficulty because any improvement carried out by a leaseholder must have the approval of the ground landlord. The ground landlord often will attempt to renegotiate the terms of the lease or to obtain extra benefit in ground rent—or he may just say "No". On the other hand, if we are to consider the matter retrospectively, I thought that Conservatives, judging from events in recent weeks, were opposed to retrospection almost as though it were one of the original sins.
8 p.m.
The impact of the clause would be to try to include those whose homes were excluded from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 because they were improved before 1965 and therefore had their rateable values raised. The hon. Gentleman now


suggests that, some years later, the county court should be asked to rule on whether improvements which had been carried out before 1965 created a situation where the property was improved to such an extent that it should be excluded from the provisions of the 1967 Act.
I am most sympathetic to leasehold reform, and indeed I have campaigned on this issue for many years. The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with somebody who has had his heart in this subject for many years. However, I must tell him that such proposals as are included in his clause are difficult to envisage in terms of the courts having to adjudicate retrospectively in respect of improvements carried out many years ago.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will be able to give greater emphasis to what many Labour Members would like to see—that is, the abolition of rateable value limits on enfranchisement. The provisions are cumbersome and could usefully be swept away if we were to abolish all rateable value limits.

Mr. Rowlands: The blandishments and enticements of my hon. Friend are attractive. I appreciate that I can be chided on my record in the past in support of such abolition. I am saying that the cumbersome way in which the provisions are aimed at enabling more people to be enfranchised may or may not be best implemented by abolishing or altering the rateable value limit. I believe that the handful of cases where the provisions of the clause would apply would be adequately covered by the extension of rateable value limits. Therefore, there is no point in taking matters to the extreme in the cumbersome way envisaged here by trying to extend the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act in respect of those who qualify under it.
I believe that the new clause would cause something of a nightmare in the county courts which would have to rule retrospectively on improvements predating 1965. Therefore, I hope that, in

the light of my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not press the matter.

Mr. Rossi: I have the deepest sympathy for the Minister in having to argue that case. I know from a knowledge of his views on leasehold reform that he could not have had his heart in what he was saying and dutifully kept to his ministerial brief.

Mr. Rowlands: There is no ministerial brief.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman dredged the bottom of the barrel in searching for arguments to rebut the clause. First, he complained that the proposal was too cumbersome. I would remind hint that it is taken from existing legislation—namely, the 1957 Act, which was supported by the Labour Party. There is a respectable precedent for this mechanism by adjusting rateable value where an injustice exists.
The hon. Gentleman said that because only a few cases were likely to arise we did not need to correct that injustice. Surely we should not take into account quantity in dealing with whether a situation is just or unjust. I know from the representations which I have received that there are a number of cases where leaseholder; have already penalised themselves by carrying out improvements which this clause would seek to assist in terms of relief.
So far as the future is concerned, the Minister believes that nobody will be so foolish as to improve accommodation before he enfranchises. In an ideal world when every body is his own lawyer and is well versed in legal intricacies of the law of landlord and tenant, no doubt that situation might obtain, but day in and day out people act in ignorance of the law. We are seeking to protect the person who has acted in ignorance of the law and who has lost for himself a valuable legal right.
If the problem is as simple as the Minister says it is, I cannot understand why he should resist this modest clause so vehemently. I ask my hon. Friends to support the provision.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 166.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Banks, Robert
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Pardoe, John


Beith, A. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Henderson, J.S.B.(Dunbartonshire, E.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Benyon, W.
Higgins, Terence
Rathbone, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Budgen, Nick
Hurd, Douglas
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shelton, William (L'mb'th,Streath'm)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Kilfedder, James A.
Silvester, Fred


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Corrie, John
Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Dixon, Piers
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stradling Thomas, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Durant. Tony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Luce, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Townsend, C. D.


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Tyler, Paul


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Viggers, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)
Mayhew,Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Freud, Clement
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Wall, Patrick


Gardiner,George (Reigale&amp;Banstead)
Mills, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Money, Ernie
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)



Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Dr. Gerard Vaughan and


Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Cecil Parkinson




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Clemltson, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth


Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey(Spelthorne)
Cocks, Michael
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, Norman
Coleman, Donald
Edelman, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Concannon, J. D.
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bates, Alf
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'klrk&amp;G'm'th)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Cryer, G. R.
Flannery, Martin


Bldwell, Sydney
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, V.)
Forrester, John


Boardman, H.
Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Booth, Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Freeson, Reginald


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Gaipern, Sir Myer


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dempsey, James
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Doig, Peter
Ginsburg, David


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Goiding, John


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Graham, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Grant, George (Morpeth)




Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Hamling, William
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Harper, Joseph
McNamara, Kevin
Small, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Madden, M. O. F.
Snape, Peter


Hatton. Frank
Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David
Stallard, A. W.


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itcher)
Tinn, James


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moonman, Eric
Tomlinson, John


John, Brynmor
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Torney, Tom


Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Watkins, David


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watt, Hamish


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parry, Robert
Weitzman, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


Kerr, Russell
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Latham, Arthur(CltyofW'minsterP'ton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Woof, Robert


Lawson,George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Rowlands, Edward
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Loughlin, Charles
Selby, Harry



Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne )
Mr. Tom Cox and


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Mr. James Hamilton.


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark,Dulwich)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

CONTINUATION OF HOUSING CORPORATION WITH EXTENDED FUNCTIONS

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 2, line 27, at end insert:
'subject to consultation with the relevant local authority'.
There is some concern, especially among the larger authorities, about the extension of powers that the Bill gives to the Housing Corporation. If those extended powers mean that more houses will be built where they are needed, I shall be satisfied, but I should like an assurance that the houses will be built and that they will be built where they are needed.
Under the 1957 Act, local authorities were able to make grants and loans to housing associations, and the Act included nomination rights so that the houses provided could be let
as may appear to the local authority to be expedient in view of the needs of their district.
The Housing Corporation will not have knowledge of the needs of each council's area. 'There is no obligation on the cor

poration to consider the housing needs of an area. Having two authorities with the same duties operating in the same area and under no obligation to consult each other could lead to a duplication of administration and information and be wasteful of resources.
The Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply, knows the complications of assessing the housing needs of a district like the city of Manchester, which we both represent. It is an immensely complicated task, which cities particularly have great difficulty in assessing. I accept that both the Housing Corporation and the local authorities can be required by the Secretary of State to consult each other. However, I can think of no case where that consultation should not take place. Therefore, the requirement for consultation should be written into the Bill. I urge my hon. Friend to make sure of that consultation under any Secretary of State, not just the present one, by supporting the amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I support the amendment.
The borough of Islington recently had experience of a case where a housing association, based not locally but in the north of England, had had consultation with the Housing Corporation for some period, but it was only at a very late


stage that the borough discovered that, as a result of those proceedings, the housing association had acquired an extensive property within its area.
It is not right, especially when a borough has a close relationship with housing associations, provides them with a great deal of assistance, is co-operative and has a zoning arrangement under which housing associations are allocated to parts of the borough, that in those circumstances, or perhaps in any circumstances, the Housing Corporation, which is a public body, should operate behind the back of the local authority, which is how the local authority in this case saw it.
We are giving the Housing Corporation extended functions, which we hope it will use responsibly. I suggest that one element in acting responsibly in this sphere is acting in consultation with the local authority. The amendment does not call for agreement by the local authority. Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which we would hope that the corporaton would overrule and go against the views of a local authority. However, it ought not to act in the way that I described earlier without advance consultation with the local authority concerned. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept either the amendment or the content of it and to bring forward their own amendment at a later stage.
Finally, I should like to make one related point. Because of the extended functions of the corporation it is even more important that its board should include people with experience of the work of housing associations. That is not the position at the moment. Recently I asked the Minister a question about this matter. His answer suggested that only one member of the board has direct experience of housing association work. If the corporation is to have friendly relations with the housing associations it must have more people with housing association experience appointed to the board. When the composition of the board comes up for review I hope that the Minister will give effect to changes along those lines.

Mr. Kaufman: After the fantasies which emanated from Kensington and the solicitude of the Opposition Front

Bench for wealthy leaseholders, it was a relief to listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who talked about the serious and genuine problems of inner city areas.
Having had the privilege of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in Committee, I know that he will forgive me if I say that I especially welcome the accent of Manchester in this debate, because the problems there are very different from those in inner London and the views of those who wish to have security of tenure removed from people living in inner London.
I assure both my hon. Friends that, in asking my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton not to press his amendment, I am not doing so because I reject the arguments that they have put forward. If we thought that the results which they want would not be forthcoming, we would, even though the amendment is technically defective, have been prepared to see whether we could adapt it. Tie results that my hon. Friends wish to see will be forthcoming without the incorporation of the amendment.
I shall not trouble to go into arguments against the technicalities of the amendment. It would be easy for me to spend some time describing why the amendment is technically defective, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton would have every right to say, "If the only argument against the amendment is its technical defects, it is up to you, with the aid of your civil servants, to iron out those defects." That is not the argument that I wish to advance.
First, I should like to reassure my hon. Friend about his misgivings on the nomination rights. Local authorities will continue to have nomination rights if they continue to lend. It will be for them to make the choice. There is no need for an association to switch to borrowing from the Housing Corporation if it continues to receive co-operation from the local authority by way of loans. I am sure that local authorities, which are conscious of their civic responsibilities—as both the city of Manchester and the London borough of Islington are—will take that into account.
8.30 p.m.
Local authorities have been assured that it is the intention of the Housing Corporation to consult and to co-operate fully with local authorities. Lord Goodman has stated publicly that that will be the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could, if necessary, use his powers of direction to see that they do so. In the light of this, a statutory requirement to consult, in the manner proposed in my hon. Friend's amendment, is for that general reason unnecessary. He may find this more convincing. He implies that every Secretary of State may not be like this Secretary of State. No doubt the further implication would be that no Chairman of the Housing Corporation would necessarily behave as Lord Goodman has said he will behave. I assure the hon. Member that this amendment is also unnecessary.
In so far as the corporation is exercising its powers to provide dwellings or hostels it will have to obtain planning consent and will have to refer to the local authority in connection with building regulations, sewerage and highway controls. The crux of the matter is that cooperation with local authorities is not something that can be enforced by legislation, even were we to legislate.
If the corporation is to make the sort of progress and contribution to solving housing problems which is intended and which my hon. Friends clearly expect, it will find it essential to consult local authorities on many aspects of its work at a number of points connected with each development.
In the light of that, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.

Mr. Marks: In view of the assurances of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

PROVISION OF DWELLINGS OR HOSTELS AND CLEARANCE, MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND

Mr. Peter Rost: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 4, line 27, at end insert:

'(2) In exercising their powers to provide dwellings under subsection (1) above, the Corporation shall arrange so far as practicable for the provision in any such dwellings of chimneys or flues capable of serving Class I appliances within the meaning of the Building Regulations 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Class I appliances").
(3) In exercising their powers to improve dwellings under subsection (1) above, the Corporation shall take such steps as are practicable to restore and put in order chimneys and flues serving Class I appliances'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments: No 74, in page 42, line 9, after accommodation', insert:
'and the restoration and putting in order of chimneys and flues serving Class I appliances'.

No. 75, in page 42, line 12, at end insert:
'(3) In exercising their powers to provide housing accommodation by the construction of building under subsection (2) above, the local authority shall arrange so far as practicable for the provision in any such buildings of chimneys or flues capable of serving Class I appliances.
(4) In exercising their powers to improve or repair h )using accommodation under subsection (2) above, the local authority shall take such steps as are practicable to restore and put in order chimneys and flues serving Class I appliances'.

No. 76, in page 51, line 17, after section ', insert:
'(d) that all chimneys or flues capable of serving Class I appliances are restored and put in order so far as is practicable;'.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having selected this group of amendments in my name. It reflects on the wisdom of your judgment in deciding what is important and what is less important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am always willing to have reflected glory. In this case it belongs to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ros: I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had some say in these matters. No doubt this group of amendment s would still have been selected even if the Opposition Front Bench had added their names to it, adopted it and added their support to it.
The group of amendments attempts to impose some obligations on the Housing Corporation to see that the trend of building in the public sector, whereby chimneys and flues are regarded as irrelevant and unnecessary, is reversed.
There are many of us—not necessarily only those who are anxious to promote the indigenous coal industry in this country, but many other people, for other reasons—who feel that we are moving the wrong way in now building in the public sector vast numbers of houses and other accommodation without flues or chimneys.
The coal industry and the Coal Merchants' Federation have a special interest here. I need not declare an interest, because I have no interest. I nevertheless mention this.
It is disappointing that hon. Members opposite are not in attendance in strength to deal with a matter which I would have thought was of extreme concern and interest to them. They are extremely interested in promoting the coal industry. Here is an important area of legislation where it seems that without these amendments we could obtain an increase in building without flues or chimneys.
There are one or two reasons why I believe these amendments will be supported by the Government. We should be keeping our options open in the future with regard to our energy supplies. We may or may not have adequate electricity and gas. We shall have, or are planning to have, adequate solid fuel. Therefore, it seems ridiculous that we should be building more and more of our public sector housing without the ability to burn this fuel. One cannot burn smokeless fuel, or use anthracite central heating burners or normal grates, without flues or chimneys. There is no inducement for local authorities—nor would there be for the Housing Corporation unless we pass these amendments—to provide chimneys and flues.
In the private sector housing the individual who buys a house has a choice. He can order the building firm to provide chimneys. He can ask the architect to ensure that they are incorporated in the construction of the house. No doubt he would pay extra for it. This is a consumer choice which I think is desirable. This choice is increasingly being removed from those who are necessarily accommodated in the public sector. That is a most undesirable trend, particularly in the light of the recent unsatisfactory Government decree that the price of electricity for night storage heating was to be increased substantially—a decree that was reversed, thanks to the vigilance of

the Opposition in the Division Lobbies. This is another example of what can happen if there is no option. If there is no freedom of choice the poor consumer is obliged to use electricity or gas for his heating, because he has no flue or chimney.
If we are to pump vast sums of public money into the future of the coal industry and the development of more efficient methods of burning solid fuel, with the use of smokeless fuel and other improvements, it is important to maintain a substantial domestic market for our solid fuel. I cannot see what future there can be for such a market if we allow more and more public buildings to be constructed without facilities to burn solid fuel.
I have no doubt that the Government will be wholeheartedly in agreement with the amendments, because their purpose must be in complete sympathy with all that the Government support.

Mr. Robert Redmond: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and the thanks are due to you entirely, not to Mr. Speaker.
I was alerted to the problem so well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) by the Bolton Chamber of Trade, which was acting on behalf of the local coal merchants. My name should be on the Amendment Paper as one of the supporters of the amendment. I suppose that the reason for its not appearing there has to do with the printing difficulties, and I shall not press the point.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not want to repeat what he has said. He spoke about buildings in the public sector. I have in mind a relatively small estate of owner-occupied houses in my constituency. Some months ago the owners, in a body, asked me to visit them because they wanted to obtain a supply of gas. The houses are built to take only oil-fired central heating. The gas board cannot connect. The owners asked me "If we cannot have gas, can we please have solid fuel? If nothing else can be done, can we please have a fireplace? We cannot afford the oil central heating with present oil prices."Those people are saying that the only alternative in the present situation is


electric heating, which is expensive. They would welcome one fireplace in their houses.
The point of the amendment is to give consumers that choice. Nothing will happen to help the people on that estate if we pass the amendment, but it should prevent anyone else having that problem in the future.
Although not many of their supporters, particularly Members from mining areas, are present, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I speak in its support as someone who comes from near the Lancashire coalfield, which I have always supported in a long period in politics.

Mr. Emery: The amendment has been urged upon many hon. Members by those who support the coal lobby. It is understandable that those concerned with the mining of coal should want to try to ensure that in housing today facilities for the burning of coal are kept in the forefront of the minds of consumers of energy. I fully understand that, and it is right and proper that we should discuss the matter as we debate the aspects of improvement grants under the Bill.
However, it would be wrong of me not to say that the problem is not quite so easy as just to affect the coal lobby. In certain houses the problem of overall thermal insulation is much greater than the problems of providing grates.
We should consider in this context chimneys and flues used not only in the burning of coal but also, as I come from Devon where there is no coal but where we cut wood, in the burning of wood—which is very nice too. However, where fireplaces are not used, considerable insulation problems can be created and problems can also arise where fireplaces have to be closed.
I hope that the Government will take the view that where people opt for a fireplace in the living room that should be their right, and that where local authorities wish to provide fireplaces because they detect a demand, the Government should do nothing to hinder this. However, to make it obligatory that chimneys and flues should be provided in all new houses would probably be going much too far. If action were to be taken in

this way I would urge the Government to consider much more fully the use of their powers of grant to encourage thermal efficiency, particularly in the construction of houses.
I was aghast to see a report from the Association of Industrialised Building Component Manufacturers stating that the heat lost in British housing today was about 3,500 BThUs per day greater than in most housing in Europe and that, with proper thermal insulation, we could without a great deal of cost or without much difficulty reduce the thermal loss by at least 20 per cent., and probably more.
I fully understand the views expressed in the amendment, and it is right and proper that we should not forget the National Coal Board's need to be able to market domestic coal—although I must point out, bearing in mind that I used to have some responsibility in this connectior, that too often the National Coal Board finds that it is short of domestic coal and so has to import coal. The ordinary coal consumer should be allowed to have a fireplace in his living room if he wishes.
Provided that we can get an understanding from the Government that their approach will be in accordance with the points I have mentioned, I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with such an assurance and that he will not wish to press this matter to a Division.

Mr. Tyler: I wish to add my voice, on behalf of the peat lobby, to the speeches we have heard on behalf of the log and coal lobbies. The point which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) raised about thermal insulation is much more important than the mere question of flues and chimneys, and I hope that the Minister in reply will not deal only technically with the amendments but will range a little wider over the much more serious problem of terminal insulation which in the past has not had the attention it deserves from the House.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: What an interesting evening this has been. The Conservative Party has now become the party of the leaseholders and the coal miners, all in a few minutes. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who has an agreeable knack of being impartially party political, when I tried to congratulate


his party on its conversion to causes with which it has never been signally associated, told me—

Mr. Redmond: Mr. Redmond rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. I shall refer to the hon. Member in a moment. He will not escape my attention.
We welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). He has campaigned on this issue, and not only in this Parliament. He holds it dear for a number of reasons. I will not reflect on them all, but when he says that he has no interest to declare I recall that his constituency has a number of coal miners in it and that he can be overturned on a narrow swing. Just as he was very judicious in his attitude during the coal dispute that his Government continually stirred up, so, now that he is in opposition, he is maintaining a consistent attitude.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), with a majority which is only a minute fraction even of that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, is right to wish to placate any residuary coalminers there may still be in his constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that is a fair exchange of courtesies. Perhaps we might now come to the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I take very seriously what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has said, but the Bill is an inappropriate vehicle for achieving the objects of the amendment. If it were considered necessary to require the provision of flues and chimneys it would be better to do so in respect of new and improved dwellings generally and not to deal merely with dwellings to be provided by the Housing Corporation or by local authorities or those which are the subject of improvement grants.
The amendment is particularly ineffective since it relates only to houses provided or improved by the Housing Corporation acting directly on its own behalf and not to the far greater number which would be provided or improved by housing associations. The place of coal in future domestic heating is in any case

more likely to be predominantly through the production of gas and electricity and in district heating schemes rather than in open fires.
The general points raised are apposite because they are matters that the Government are considering seriously. For instance, we are considering the question of thermal insulation in the Department. But I would go further. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), with his experience in the Department of Trade and Industry, will realise that these matters fit into the much wider context of energy conservation. He will know that the Secretary of State for Energy has issued a statement on this matter today and will be making a wider statement which will deal, apart from other implications, with energy conservation through forms of heating and insulation.
If coal is to be used to produce heat in houses themselves rather than through district heating schemes, it is likely to be by a single domestic boiler or boiler-backed open fire for which a flue could be provided as and when necessary. The expense would hardly justify the compulsory provision of chimneys in all dwellings.
I would tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East that his Amendment No. 74 is unnecessary since the term "repair" clearly embraces the restoration of chimneys and flues. We would regard Amendment No. 75 as undesirable since it is clearly inappropriate, in this clause dealing with general powers to provide housing accommodation, to try even for the worthiest motives—and I accept the hon. Gentleman's reasoning—to prescribe design details or to prescribe one form of heating rather than another.
We do not deride the hon. Member's objective. We take it seriously, for precisely the reason he has advanced, namely, that we wish to see a market for domestic coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and I know, in our constituencies many people still burn coal in open fires and when one visits people there one has an extremely pleasant atmosphere from those fires. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member to accept that while we have to resist his amendment, if pressed, we do not resist the general import of his argument.

Mr. Rost: I must admit I find the hon. Gentleman's reply most disappointing. I do not think I have ever heard a more disappointing answer to a reasonable and sound case than we have just heard. He says that he wishes to see a market in domestic coal promoted, advanced or continued. He has an opportunity here at least to give some encouragement following the vast sums of money that the Coal Board is spending on research for domestic appliances to burn fuel more efficiently in the home. The Coal Board is spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money not just on research but on sales and promotion of domestic appliances.
I cannot for the life of me see why the hon. Gentleman should want to resist these amendments in principle. Amendment No. 73 simply suggests that the Housing Corporation shall arrange, as far as practicable, for the provision in any dwelling of chimneys or flues. It does not force it to do so. It merely gives the corporation a directive to do so if it is desirable, if there is a demand. I only wish that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues from the back benches were here this evening, particularly those who are vociferous when coal industry matters are being debated. If they could have heard his reply—and I shall make sure they do hear of his reply—I believe he would be in severe difficulties. I think he could have done a lot better. When did the hon. Gentleman last go back to the coal face?

Mr. Kaufman: I am asked when I was last at the coal face. I was there only a few months ago when I last visited a coal mine. I do not know when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) was last there. With regard to what he has just said, I shall be happy to circulate my speech to all my hon. Friends who are members of the miners' group because they are the people who have consistently shown an interest in and a care for coal and do not need to be told by any hon. Member opposite about their responsibilities to the coal industry.

Mr. Rost: I am most obliged for that comment. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will keep his promise to do just that and I shall be interested to hear the response he gets. No doubt I shall

put down Questions to prompt him as to what the Coal Board says on the reply he has given tonight, and, of course, what is said by the Coal Merchants' Federation and all other parties interested in this country who wish to see consumer choice maintained and to see a sensible energy policy followed.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is quite unsatisfactory, because it rests entirely on what he has put to the House, that just because the corporation is to be responsible for only a small sector of housing, therefore it does not matter. Surely, what we suggest is exactly the type of lead that is required. It is quite unsatisfactory that the hon. Gentleman should read out a brief presented to him before he entered this debate and defend an indefensible line of argument which is entire y inconsistent with his own Government's policy. I find it most regrettable.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

DISPOSAL OF LAND

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 6, line 7, at end insert:
'(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) above "local authority", in relation to England and Wales, means—
(a) the council of a district or, in the case of an acquisition before 1st April 1974, the council of a county borough or county district; and
(b) the council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.'
I do so deeply chastened by what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has said to me, and I shall therefore speak to this technical amendment in a subdued voice.
The amendment corrects a slight omission in the Bill. Subsection (5) of the clause permits disposal by the corporation of land not required for purposes for which it was acquired, subsection (5)(a) refers to a local authority which may have acquired land compulsorily on behalf of the corporation, and since the term "local authority' can refer to different bodies in different contexts it is desirable to define what is meant by the term in this context.
The Housing Act 1964 defined, in Section 12, local authorities in relation to, and in terms of, local authorities existing before 1st April 1974. This was the date when new local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972 came into being. That definition is repealed by Clause 112 and Schedule 13 of the Bill, and the amendment replaces it with a definition which covers both old and new descriptions of local authorities.
It is necessary to continue to refer to the authorities which were in existence before 1st April 1974 because some of the corporation's land may have been acquired compulsorily and transferred to the corporation by a local authority before that date.
I trust that the House will agree to the amendment, even though it, too, is based on a brief supplied to me before I entered the Chamber and not carried to me by a messenger running along the Front Bench.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES AND CONTROL OF SUBSIDIARIES

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 6, line 11 at end insert:
(2) The Secretary of State shall only give such consent where he is satisfied that such subscription for or acquisition of securities of a corporate body satisfies one of the following conditions, that is to say—
(a) it is the most convenient way of acquiring development land or buildings for the provision of residential accommodation belonging to such corporate body; or
(b) such corporate body is incorporated for the purpose of promoting assisting or financing housing associations as for the purpose of managing residential properties as its main object.
The House will recall that on Second Reading hon. Members expressed concern at the widening of the clause, giving the Housing Corporation the power, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to acquire shares in any company quoted on the Stock Exchange. A number of hon. Members felt that this power was far too wide, and in respect to the views expressed on Second Reading an amendment was moved in Committee which proposed to limit the power of the Secretary of State to give consent to such cases

where he was satisfied that the need to acquire the company was to facilitate the acquisition of land or buildings by the corporation in order to provide residential accommodation.
In our minds at the time was the knowledge that frequently companies holding land or buildings find it more convenient to sell the shares of their company rather than sell off the land and keep the company in being in the hands of the original shareholders. This is because one of the quirks of our tax law, whereby the sale of the property and the retention of the shares by the shareholders incurs a great deal more tax for the ultimate beneficiaries to pay than where the shares of the company itself are sold off entirely to someone wishing to acquire the land which is the property of that company.
9 p.m.
Therefore, it seemed to us to make good sense to leave the Secretary of State with the power to give his consent to the Housing Corporation to acquire shares in companies where that situation existed. During the course of the debate, the Minister said that he felt that possibly the misgivings were unnecessary because subsection (2) gave an indication of the work that a subsidiary of a company bought up in that way could do. He went on to say, however, that he would be prepared to look at the text of the Bill in order to meet the real anxieties that he had heard expressed to him. But he made one qualification. He said that the amendment as moved in Committee was possibly a little too restrictive because it
could prevent the corporation from joining with the work of any corporate body which had the task of raising finance for housing associations, or a body which might be involved in the management of properties, or which existed to promote housing associations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th May 1974; c. 85.]
It is to meet the objections which the Minister raised to the amendment in Committee that we have now widened it so that it now falls into two parts. The first part—paragraph (a)—repeats the previous amendment's provision that the powers should be used to acquire shares in a company where it is a convenient way of acquiring land or buildings. To that is added paragraph (b), which deals with the points mentioned by the Minister and which I have just quoted.
Therefore, having met the objections of the Minister to the amendment that we proposed previously, I trust that he will now meet and accept our amendment.

Mr. Freeson: The purpose of the amendment is plainly to circumscribe very closely the corporation's powers to acquire securities so as to prevent the power becoming a general vehicle for State control of a wider group of companies and possibly for the nationalisation of the building industry. That is a very brief summary of the kind of fears that were expressed in Committee.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, I undertook in Committee to look again at the clause to see whether there was any reality to the fears that were being expressed as to the wide-ranging nature of the powers being given to the corporation. I have done that very carefully, and I must state again that there is no foundation for such fears. Indeed, the Bill as drafted already would prevent such fears becoming a reality, as I hope to explain.
The clause is intentionally fairly wide in its application, but it certainly is not so wide as to provide a suitable vehicle for the nationalisation of the building industry—to take that point for a start—quite apart from the fact that were any such policy to be embarked upon, this would certainly not be a suitable vehicle for it.
As I stated in Committee when we last discussed this matter, the clause already provides that the Secretary of State's consent is required to any exercise of the corporation's powers to acquire securities. Second, expenditure by the corporation on share acquisition would count towards its borrowing limits in Clause 7(5) and would, therefore, have to compete for funds with the corporation's primary function, laid down in the Bill and the Act of 1964, to support the housing association movement.
Even with the fullest use of every penny the corporation can borrow under the Bill—and it must be remembered that a substantial part of that sum has already been raised and lent to housing associations under the corporation's present powers—the money available

would not go very far, to put it mildly, to nationalise the building industry.
The terms of subsection (2) effectively limit the range of corporate bodies in which the corporation may take a controlling interest since subsidiaries of the corporation cannot engage in activities which the corporation is not itself empowered to carry on. I sought to make this clear in Committee and I will elaborate further on the point. Bodies in which the corporation takes less than a controlling interest—that is, less than half the nominal value of the equity—would no be subsidiaries of the corporation. Such bodies are referred to in the Bill simply as bodies in which the corporation holds an interest. For such holdings the specific restrictions placed on subsidiaries under subsection (2) cannot apply since the corporation cannot dictate the policy and the conduct of such bodies because it is not a major shareholder.
If, therefore, the operations of such an associate body were to conflict with the corporation's own objectives or with public policy, the corporation would be expected to divest itself of that shareholding and the Secretary of State could require the corporation to do so by a direction under Section 1(2) of the Housing Act 1964 which set up the Housing Corporation. Alternatively, the corporation might wish to increase its stock to a majority holding so as to control the body corporate concerned, but that body would then become a subsidiary and would thereby become restricted by subsection (2) which sets out the scope of the corporation.
In other words, such bodies could not carry on such activities which were outside the scope of the corporation as specified in the Act and the Bill. The corporation could not use that right to enter the construction industry since it would be outside the scope of its primary function. It is possible to envisage the sort of circumstances in which it would be desirable for the corporation to acquire shares in a corporate body, for example in the development of sites in London for, say, cert. in essential public service workers. That might best be approached by a consortium consisting of the corporation, the public utility, a group of housing associations and a building firm.
I am not suggesting that I have described a technique which will be adopted, but I can inform the House that the corporation is already, under Government sponsorship and guidance, totally involved in consultations with transport undertakings to try to get land, which could be used for housing, brought into use via the housing associations sponsored by the corporation to assist in the housing of transport and other public service workers. This is therefore the kind of area in which the corporation is already getting involved under Government sponsorship and which could well involve a variety of techniques dependent upon the sites and situations that have to be tackled.
While the amendment is somewhat wider than those we discussed in Standing Committee, it is still unduly restrictive. It restricts the scope for the corporation to associate with existing bodies or to arrange its corporate structure in the most convenient way to carry out its activities. It is because of this unnecessarily restrictive approach that we wish to resist the amendment. I hope that I have made explicitly clear that the fears expressed in Committee and briefly restated again today are quite unfounded. It would not be possible for the corporation to use associate bodies or companies in which it had a majority holding to undertake the kind of activities which hon. Members fear.

Mr. Allason: Clause 4 provides that the corporation can undertake the provision or improvement of dwellings, clear any land, provide streets, roads
open spaces, and the provision of sewerage facilities
and other matters. What is that if it is not the activity of the construction industry?

Mr. Freeson: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is stretching things a bit far. This is not the nationalisation of the construction industry. The Housing Corporation—like any local authority—if given the necessary power by the Bill would be able to undertake such activities in the same way as local authorities. However, it could do so on a much wider basis. That does not involve direct involvement in the building industry, no more than local authorities

using direct labour organisations are in any way the major construction agents for the jobs that they put in hand. The authorities employ contractors.
I am not trying to make an ideological point about direct labour. However widely it is used, it still remains true that the majority of activities of this kind are undertaken by contract. The same would be the position with the Housing Corporation and the housing associations with which it was associated. That would be the position if it undertook the work direct. When I say direct, I do not mean that it would be taking over a slice of the construction industry, but it would be undertaking development in the same way as that in which it is undertaken by local authorities. It would do so on behalf of and in co-operation with local authorities or in co-operation with public services which have redundant operational land of any size which is suitable to bring into use for housing and other urban development. That would involve streets, sewers and various services in certain situations.
I hope that satisfactorily explains the position. This is nothing to do with an attempt to take over the construction industry. This is a matter which is directed to a different purpose such as I have just described.

Mr. Michael Morris: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that there is nothing wrong with the amendment but that basically it is not absolutely necessary. Having said that, I must stress that some real fears have been raised within the building industry. I have yet to hear anything the Minister says that would rule out the amendment.

Mr. Freeson: We are getting a little confused. On the one hand, we are talking about whether the amendment is desirable or necessary or unnecessary, and on the other hand we are talking about fears about the Bill as it stands. I have sought to explain that those fears are unjustified. I think that I have done so objectively. I have sought to argue, as I did at greater length in Committee, that the amendment, even though altered, is unduly restrictive. It is certainly unnecessary and we must resist it. The fear that is the reason for introducing it is groundless. There is no need for it in any way.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 178.

Division No. 53]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Atkins, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Banks, Robert
Henderson, J.S.B. (Dunbartonshire,E.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)


Bell, Ronald
Higgins, Terence
Percival, Ian


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Oavison, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rathbone, Tim


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Renton, Rt.Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ritkind, Malcolm


Bulmer, Esmond
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kilfedder, James A.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shersby, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Knox, David
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman
Sims, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Corrie, John
Latham, Arthur (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Critchley, Julian
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stanley, John


Dixon, Piers
Loveridge, John
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, John


Durant, Tony
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Farr, John
Mather, Carol
Townsend, C. D.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maude, Angus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Viggers, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gardiner,George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Money, Ernie
Weatherill, Bernard


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.J
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael



Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Hall, Sir John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan


Hampson, Dr. Keith






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Michael
Edge, Geoff


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, John (Newton)


Alkins, Ronald
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'klrk&amp;G'm'th)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bates, Alf
Cryer, G. R.
Forrester, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham,G.(Isl'ngt'n,S &amp; F'sb'ly)
Freeson, Reginald


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Freud, Clement


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Golding, John


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Graham, Ted


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dormand, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamling, William


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie, Alex
Hatton, Frank


Clemitson, Ivor
Edelman, Maurice
Heffer, Eric S.




Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Hooson, Emlyn
Marquand, David
Small, William


Horam, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stott, Roger


Jannor, Greville
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


John, Brynmor
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
O'Halloran, Michael
Torney, Tom


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Watt, Hamish


Kerr, Russell
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Lamborn, Harry
Phipps, Dr. Colin
White, James


Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Lawson,George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rowlands, Edward
Woodall, Alec


McCartney, Hugh
Selby, Harry
Woof, Robert


McElhone, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



McGuire, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNamara, Kevin
Silkin,Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark,Dulwich)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Madden, M. O. F.
Sillars, James
Mr. Walter Johnson.


Magee, Bryan
Silverman, Julius

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 6, line 11, insert:
'(2) The Corporation shall only acquire a controlling interest of any private company within the meaning of section 28 of the Companies Act 1948 if three quarters of the directors of that company have agreed in writing thereto.
(3) The Corporation shall not purchase or acquire more than ten per cent. of the issued share capital of any public company within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Companies Act unless a simple majority of the shareholders (including proxies) at a specially convened Extraordinary General Meeting have given consent thereto; and the Corporation shall not acquire more than 49 per cent. of the issued share capital unless the majority at the aforesaid meeting (including proxies) exceeds sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. of those eligible to vote and voting excluding any voting rights that the company may itself be able to exercise by virtue of the acquisition of securities'.
The amendment is intended to act as a safeguard for a company against an unwelcome take-over. The amendment proposes that there should be the consent of at least 75 per cent. of the directors to the take-over of a private company. If more than 10 per cent. of the shareholding in a public company is to be acquired, the amendment proposes that there shall be the consent of a simple

majority of the shareholders. Where more than 49 per cent. of the shareholding is acquired by the Housing Corporation, that is a take-over and the amendment proposes that there shall be the consent of two-thirds of the shareholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has already described the concern felt over the powers provided in Clause 6. The Minister said that we need not be too worried, because under subsection (2)(a) a subsidiary would not engage in any activity which the corporation would not be empowered to carry out. It was to clarify this matter that I sought to intervene in the Minister's remarks in an earlier discussion. The Minister said that a subsidiary would not be a threat to the construction industry, and I pointed out that Clause 4 appeared to cover a subsidiary indulging in all the activities of a building firm. It would appear that there could be an unwelcome take-over of a building firm—in other words, a take-over resisted by the directors in a private company or by the shareholders in a public company. I believe that an unfair situation could arise if the Housing Corporation were determined to take over the firm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey said that it would be possible for a company which held land to find that its


share quotation amounted to a lower figure than the value of the land it owned. If the company agreed to sell to the corporation as a means of parting with land, that would be all well and good, and the provisions of the amendment would not apply; but if a company resisted a move by the corporation and said that such action was unfair, why should a situation arise where the company would virtually be wound up by transferring its building organisation to the corporation? This is what the Bill, as drafted, amounts to. We believe that the amendment would provide a necessary safeguard and that it should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Freeson: We have already gone over this ground in a previous discussion. Indeed, this matter was touched on in an identical amendment in Standing Committee, although it was not moved.
I do not wish to be provocative, but one or two Conservatives are beginning to sound a little paranoiac in terms of their ideology. We are dealing with an organisation which, within a matter of years, would not be sponsoring more than a small proportion of the total house building effort of the nation, even at our present nationally low level.
9.30 p.m.
If we are able to get the house building programme up again in the next two or three years to near its level of a few years ago, the number of houses sponsored by the Housing Corporation directly or via housing associations will go up and it is likely that the relative proportion will go down.
Why there should be this fear that the corporation will move in and do some kind of massive take-over of the building industry, threatening the industry with nationalisation and the rest of it, I find it difficult to understand. If we want to establish public ownership of some of the companies concerned, there are other much more effective ways of undertaking such a policy. I have said that already, and I say it again. The Opposition are becoming unduly sensitive about matters when they put forward this view in a somewhat bogylike style.
The object of the amendment, being to prevent the corporation from taking over private or public companies or even taking significant stakes in public com

panies, against the wishes of directors and shareholders respectively, is framed in a way which goes further than any requirements relating to take-overs in the private sector as we know them. The amendment would place more onerous conditions on the corporation than those already placed on organisations much larger in scope and intention in the private sector. I do not consider that that would be the right approach to adopt with regard to an organisation which we all wish to see expand its activities.
The proposed subsection (2) relates to private companies whose shares are not generally marketed. In such cases it follows that the corporation would not be in a position to acquire a controlling interest in a private company other than with the consent of the private shareholders who will normally comprise the directors. The private company can be acquired only by consent, and the effect of the amendment is only to increase from a half to three-quarters of the equity the proportion necessary to secure control.
As regards public companies, which are not defined in Section 1 of the Companies Act—and, therefore, this amendment is probably defective technically—anyone acquiring 10 per cent. or more of the shares in a listed public company is required to give notice that his holding has exceeded 10 per cent., but not to secure the consent of the shareholders, while any offer to acquire a controlling interest must be put to the shareholders and must secure a simple majority of their support. There is no requirement as to an extraordinary general meeting or to two-thirds majorities of those present and voting. That is broadly the position of the private sector.
The amendment is therefore deliberately onerous in an area where it is quite unnecessary in view of what we want the corporation to do, and, as I have said, it is probably technically deficient.
Although I understand the point of view underlying these arguments, I believe that they are being presented with unduly doctrinaire fears in mind. It is not necessary to incorporate an amendment of this kind. The Government must resist it.

Mr. Emery: Although I want to do everything possible to make progress, I must say that it does not help to describe the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) as paranoiac or doctrinaire.
The Minister has put forward one argument about the private sector, Section 1 of the Companies Act and the 10 per cent. position, at which the Opposition wish to look again. However, we want the Government to understand that in another place we may wish to return to some of the fears expressed by my hon. Friend. If that is understood, I shall urge my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw his amendment, although we are not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply.

Mr. Allason: In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has said, we should like to study the position again, and it may be that the matter can be returned to in another place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

LENDING POWERS

Mrs. Linda Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 9, line 31, at end add—
'(7) Subject to the provisions of subsection (9) below, in any case where the Corporation makes a loan to any of the bodies specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) above, it shall require that body to include in any new housing scheme that it proposes such proportion of dwellings as is prescribed in subsection (8) below, which are designed to meet the special needs of chronically sick and disabled persons.
(8) The proportion of specially designed dwellings in any housing scheme to which the preceding subsection applies shall be—
(a) in a scheme comprising 10, but less than 20, units, not less than one such dwelling,
(b) in a scheme comprising 20, but less than 30 units, not less than two such dwellings, and
(c) in a scheme comprising 30 or more units, not less than 3 such dwellings or 5 per cent. of the total, whichever is the greater.
(9) On an application from any body to whom subsection (7) above applies, the Corporation may, having regard to all due circumstances, authorise the reduction or

waiver of the requirements of subsection (8) above, if it is satisfied either—
(a) that conditions beyond the control of the said body would render any accommodation that it could provide unsuitable for chronically sick and disabled persons, or
(b) that the special purpose for which it is intended to provide the accommodation does, and in the foreseeable future would, entail the exclusion of all chronically sick and disabled persons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 53, in Clause 49, page 47, line 10, after 'dwelling', insert:
'or in the case of a registered disabled person works required for his welfare, accommodation or employment where the existing dwelling is inadequate or unsuitable for those purposes,'.

No. 54, in page 47, line 14, at end insert:
'or which in the case of a registered disabled person which are inaccessible to that person by virtue of his disability.'.

No. 55, in Clause 58, page 55, line 7, after 'concerned', insert:
'except in the case of a registered disabled person when this subsection shall not apply,'.

Mrs. Chalker: Having discarded over half my notes, I shall not keep the House longer than to say what is absolutely necessary about housing provision for disabled persons.
These amendments are very important. Whatever the answer by the Minister, I feel that it is important to outline the reasons why we thought it necessary to put down these amendments.
First, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 required local authorities to have regard to the housing needs of the disabled. During the last three to four years we have observed what has been happening. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are profoundly unhappy about the progress being made by some local authorities.
Recently, we had Circular 74/74, "Housing for People who are Physically Handicapped." It is because of the urgent need for housing authorities to do more and to assist housing associations to provide accommodation for the


disabled that I am moving these amendments.
We on this side of the House welcome what has been done by local authorities which had the foresight to see the necessity of purpose-built housing for the disabled. But it is no good, however often we outline the principle and however much we request local authorities to assess the needs of the disabled, if action does not follow words.
In 1969 we had a general guide in the Report on the "Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain." But we must now get down to assessing the individual needs of each local authority area. There are huge variations between the needs of different age groups and different disabilities, but a number of provisions cover all aspects of the disabled.
About 10 per cent. of all disabled people use wheelchairs. Some 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. probably never move from those wheelchairs. But even for those who can still walk there are necessary adaptations which cannot be fully solved by alterations to existing properties. Therefore, there is a specific need for local authories to provide specially designed housing.
A person who is completely dependent on a wheelchair, sometimes a large wheelchair, encounters problems in the widths of corridors and the turning circle required to get from one room to another. Disabled housewives in their kitchens cannot use modern appliances normally found in kitchens. Often excessive alterations are required which cannot be done without completely changing the structure of a house.
Those who are less severely disabled have what is termed a mobility housing problem, because they cannot mount steps. In some instances, if ramps were provided to existing accommodation they would stretch not only out into the street, but across the street and into the driveway or front garden of the house opposite. Problems also exist where doorways are narrower than the 900 millimetres required for many wheelchairs. There is also the problem of electrical sockets placed where the disabled cannot reach them without severe problems and

where switches cannot be used without the help of another person.
We have doorways which do not open sufficiently wide to allow wheelchairs, or somebody who is using a frame for support whilst moving round the home, through. We have the problem of persons who use rails around the home. If one fits an iron rail to a plasterboard partition between two rooms, after one month of pulling along on that rail attached to the plasterboard, the wall starts to crumble. That is one of the problems we wish local authorities to solve. It is no good expecting to put something right which was never designed for the fairly severe needs of those who are disabled.
We are quite used to all the exhortations from Governments and from many speakers s such as myself, but unless we require local authorities to construct purpose-built homes for our disabled we shall not solve the problem, which is growing.
The siting of dwellings is important. This is a problem which can be solved by the local authority only at the planning stage Disabled persons must be able to get from their tricycles or other vehicles to the place where they live. There must be no steps. There must be a gradient with which disabled people can cope when they are alone. The accommodation must be near to a few shops so that disabled persons living alone can look after themselves to the best of their ability. This is something they desperately want to do, but we do not give them the chance to help themselves when we put them very often in unsuitable accommodation.
On the amenity aspect, they need not only to sit in a comfortable place but to be able to see something outside the window, because they sit for many hours longer than even the elderly persons for whom we all so greatly care. They need to be able to look out of their windows and to watch their disabled vehicles placed not too far away, because there is so much vandalism in our society. All those reasons have led other hon. Members and myself, together with the Central Council for the Disabled, to suggest the need for Amendment No. 52.
Subsection (7) requires registered housing associations, subsidiaries of the Housing Corporation and any other body over


which the corporation holds interest to include in any new housing scheme a proportion of homes specifically designed to meet the needs of chronically sick and disabled persons.
Subsection (8) gives the suggested requirements. The numbers, I admit, are open to argument, but such figures as there are will help us to catch up with the necessary provision which is so lacking in the country.
Subsection (9) allows the corporation to review the requirements of the former subsection (7) where it is so requested by the housing body concerned. That would take place in an event where a statutory requirement would not be in the interests of the chronically sick and disabled, or where the specific building reason, say, for a student hostel, would exclude all the severely and very severely disabled persons.
I have also a brief word to say about Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55. These later amendments deal with the improvement grants situation and improvements to dwellings. The first of these, which falls within Clause 49(a), is to insert after "dwelling" in line 10
or in the case of a registered disabled person works required for his welfare, accommodation or employment where the existing dwelling is inadequate or unsuitable for those purposes".
We all want those disabled persons who can work, who have the will to work and who need to be encouraged, to play an even fuller part in society. We want them to be given a chance. Much employment today can be performed within the home, but if that home is unsuitable for the necessary equipment—it might, for instance, be a Possum typewriter that is needed—then it is most important that an improvement grant to widen the doorway or to improve the dwelling in some other way should be available.
The second of these three amendments grouped together adds the aspect of accessibility. Clause 49(2)(b) covers the provision of standard amenities which a dwelling lacks. With the addition of Amendment No. 54 it would also cover inaccessability to the dwelling or any part of it.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 58(3) reads:
A local authority shall not approve an application for an intermediate grant unless they are satisfied, with respect to each of the

standard amenities specified as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above, either—
(a) the dwelling concerned has been without the amenity in question for a period of not less than 12 months …".
The purpose of this amendment is to give an exception in the case of a registered disabled person when subsection (2)(a) would not apply. The reason is fairly obvious. There are some dwellings which can quite easily be adapted, and into which local authorities will willingly move a registered disabled person. Because of this, it is most important that a 12-month embargo should be waived in the case of registered disabled persons needing an intermediate grant for improvement or an improvement grant to allow them to live as full a life as possible in those dwellings.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I support the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). Amendment No. 52 is very modest. When my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I and others were taking the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill through the House, we talked about certain numbers with which civil servants disagreed. The Amelia Harris Report revealed that the numbers were much larger. The hon. Lady has been very modest in the amendment. I believe that the numbers are far greater than the amendment indicates.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept this modest amendment and will make statements showing that he recognises the problem. He knows about it, because on 8th May I tabled a Question on the subject. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction replied:
I am not satisfied with the numbers of such dwellings which have been provided since the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1974; Vol. 873, c. 167.]
My hon. Friend has issued a circular which clearly supports the hon. Lady's argument. It is clear that Conservative Members, Liberal Members, Nationalist Members and Labour Members know the problem. It is nice to know that we know it, and that, as Circular 74/74 shows, civil servants in the Department of the Environment know the problem as well. The circular says:
We are directed … to say that there is an urgent need for housing authorities to do much


more for people who are physically handicapped and to help housing associations to do so too.
I did not say that; they said it. It has been said by both Governments.
In paragraph 2 it is stated:
But still not enough housing is being provided for physically handicapped people and the range of what is being made available needs to be widened.
I throw away my notes and appeal to my hon. Friend that much more be done in this matter.
A large number of physically and severely physically handicapped people can make a contribution to our society if their homes are properly adapted to provide facilities to enable them to earn a living. That would take them off our backs. Further, if there is proper provision, facilities can be made available for severely handicapped children to be educated. I appreciate that this would cost a lot of money, but the children can be educated to such an extent that they, too, can become completely independent of any help from society. That is what they want and what we should give them. It is not charity.
Finally, I come to the question of the handicapped housewife. The hon. Member for Wallasey had this matter in mind, and I fully support her. The handicapped housewife has probably been the most neglected of all the people in our society who are in need of help. It would be so easy for us to help her. We can do so if there is a favourable response from my hon. Friend the Minister. We can aid the disabled housewife with a family if we give her the means by which she, not us, can bring up her family independently and can sustain, help, support, advise and guide them, with a minimum of cost. If we can do that this Parliament will have shown that it is humane.
I hope that there will be a favourable response from my hon. Friend. We are asking here for a minmum amount of money. We are also asking that disabled people be given the right to lead independent lives. If my hon. Friend responds, society will benefit immeasurably. A large number of disabled people will welcome any support which he can give to this all-party amendment.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I shall be brief, as I hope all hon. Members will be brief in relation to other amendments, because I have the Adjournment debate later. I shall be brief also because the case is self-evident and has been eloquently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones).
All the disabled people I know have one primary wish, to live as normal a life as possible. One of the features of the amendment which I find attractive is that in the new subsection (8) the effect of the provision would be to help create a measure of dispersion of disabled people within a community of people who are not handicapped, and this is psychologically and in every other way attractive for them. They do not wish to be isolated in what we may crudely call a ghetto. They want to lead normal lives, and living in a community of people who equally have normal lives is part of their therapy.
I hope that the Minister will take account of what I have said as one further small commendation of the amendment which has rightly been supported from both sides of the House.

Mr. Emery: There is little that I can add to the speeches we have already heard. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), the case for the disabled is self-evident, as the Government recognised in Circular 74/74.
The amendment tries to stipulate where grants can be made to a registered housing association, a subsidiary of the Housing Corporation or any other body in which the corporation has an interest. If the specifications in the amendment cannot be met, the Minister can waive them. I can understand that, when an association or the corporation is planning a student hostel or a building for single people of perhaps 15 units, it may not make sense to have to meet these requirements. But subsection (9) gives the Government a let-out.
I hope that the Government will consider this matter seriously. There are problems, which should not be belittled. In the schemes coming forward, the strict mathematical calculation in the amend


ment may cause some difficulties, but I hope that the Minister will turn his mind from the difficulties to ways of meeting the intention of the amendment. I urge that he and the Government should so do.

Mr. Freeson: I assure the House that I have turned my mind already to attaining the objectives of the amendment in general, even if I fear that I cannot recommend the House to accept it as drafted.
I come to this question with a strong personal interest as well as a ministerial one. Among many things with which I have been associated in this area it has always given me some retrospective pleasure to recall that the last parliamentary political activity in which I was involved before the unfortunate demise of the last Labour Government was as a member, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and others. of the Standing Committee which considered the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which became known as the charter for the disabled. That was the last piece of legislation to go through that Parliament and we pushed it through with the kindly help of our present Chief Whip, who was Chief Whip then also, to ensure that it was not lost by the pending election.
But much remains to be done in areas covered by that Act. I will confine myself to housing, although the Under-Secretary of State dealing with the disabled, who is present for this part of our deliberations, is pressing very hard on other aspects of that charter which have been inadequately implemented.
It will already be clear that I am sympathetic to the objectives of these amendments. I will come back to that, because this is one occasion when I should clarify the present position in expansion of the parliamentary Answer to the Question—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Housing Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Freeson: I wish to expand a little on the Answer to the parliamentary Ques

tion tabled a short while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. Before doing so, let me speak a little to the amendment. I am recommending the House not to accept it not because one disagrees with the policy which the hon. Lady and her supporters are seeking to put to us but because it represents, in the Government's view, too inflexible an approach to the problem. It would be tackling the problem in the wrong way, by seeking to impose a particular proportion of dwellings for the disabled in every housing association scheme, something which is not done even in the local authority field, even in the wake of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
In planning housing for the chronically sick and disabled, many factors other than just the nature of the accommodation itself need to be taken into account. The site must be in the right place for ease of access to local facilities, site levels should be negotiable and any necessary personal support services must be available. All this means that it is better to let the housing associations, the Housing Corporation and local authorities plan flexibly for the categories of need they feel best able to meet. There are, of course, several housing associations which specialise in this field of providing houses for the disabled. It is better to do it in that way than to seek a compulsory proportion or a statistical pattern on every scheme.
I could elaborate further on that but it will serve the purpose of this discussion, which in a sense is a mini-debate on the disabled, if I set out what we are doing by our own means and what we are asking others to do by their own means, even though I must ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Would my hon. Friend accept that the concept advanced by the Spastics Society would have entailed its own housing organisation, Habinteg, and that this is a valid method of proceeding? Secondly, a rather more fundamental point, would he suggest to his Department and all local authorities that if they are going to build houses they ought to think twice about whether steps are necessary, and whether they can put in ramps and not steps as a matter of architectural necessity?

Mr. Freeson: I support my hon. Friend's reference to Habinteg—and there are other specialist housing associations operating in this field. Inskip St. Giles and John Groom's, like Habinteg, are leaders in this field. I should refer to the fact that the Department of the Environment, together with the Department of Health and Social Security, under the all-seeing eye of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled, are jointly promoting with the London boroughs schemes for special support housing for the very severely disabled. We are doing this in the hope that when these schemes get off the ground they will provide models not only for local authorities but also for housing associations in this field.
On another important, though in statistical terms limited, contribution in this field—and I said I would like to indicate thoughts going beyond the issue of the circular—may I say without any qualification that we have not done enough in housing to enable disabled people to live in the community. Since the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there have been 1,300 submissions for new dwellings by local authorities. That is not good enough, in the light of the passage of four years and in the light of the mood in which the Act was passed and of the genuinely intended statements which I myself made at the time about housing.
I am not trying to single out anyone for blame. I do not know sufficient about what has transpired in the years since the passage of the Act, or sufficient at this moment, to be able to do so. But I do say that 1,300 dwellings is not enough in view of the scale of need which has to be met.
It was for this reason that it gave me particular pleasure and sense of urgency, as one of my earliest actions following my appointment in March, to get Circular 74/74 sent out asking local authorities to get on with increasing the amount of suitable housing available for disabled people. We described in the circular three ways in which they could do it, and we want to see district councils immediately starting on much more ambitious programmes of provision than has been evident since 1970. This must be a main priority if within a reasonable time we

are to tackle this important need adequately.
I believe that disabled people want, if they possibly can, to live at home within the community. They have a right to be able to do so, and it is our job to give them the opportunity. But time is not on the side of disabled people or of the elderly—and we know how often in individual cases these two descriptions overlap. Local authorities will have to find out who are the disabled in their districts and what are their special personal needs—whether, for example, it will be possible for them to stay in their own homes if those homes are adapted, or whether they need purpose-built dwellings fully designed and equipped for someone in a wheelchair.
Although we have given in the circular a certain number of facts and figures of a general nature about the needs and problems of handicapped people, the local authorities have to do their homework on the ground. National figures are not good enough. They have to be translated into local detail. This is true of many other aspects of housing and urban policy.
The basic view that I have urged over the years is that central and local government have a long way to go before we can possibly be satisfied that we know what the housing needs are in the community. National figures are all very well, but there are respects in which they, too, could be improved. It is my firm conviction that the important thing is for local authorities to know the housing needs of the people of or in their area and to break the figures down even within their areas in terms which will enable them to meet the needs by providing the sort of housing which is required, often desperately required.
I am not in favour of isolated specialised services when these are unrelated. Local authorities, as the best increasingly are, must assess the many factors which go to make up the present and prospective housing problem in terms of general and special needs, of the mix of types of housing and so on. Within this comprehensive approach we need to pay particular attention to those who are most vulnerable, and I expect the local authorities to do much more to find out about the needs in their areas without taking


the waiting lists as a sufficient guide—not to sit at the feet of time and simply wait for applicants who need help, but to go out and find out what the needs are. We must not rely on waiting lists to tell us because, in many instances, they reflect only a proportion of the housing needs of the areas with which we are concerned.
Again, this is true not just of the disabled but of other aspects of the housing problem. Local authorities and housing associations which have so far built for disabled people have concentrated on specially designed housing—what has been called "wheelchair housing"—and more is wanted. But only about 4 per cent. of disabled people have wheelchairs and only about 2 per cent. use wheelchairs all the time, which is where mobility housing comes in.
Some local authorities have found that by making minimal changes to standard Parker Morris dwellings it is possible to provide easily and without undue effect on costs for disabled people who can walk or, if they use a wheelchair, do not need it all the time—and that, as my figures indicate, is the majority. By including at least a level or ramped approach to front and back doors and wider doorways to the main living areas and bedrooms in new dwellings that are suitable for this treatment, it is possible to provide a new flexibility in the housing stock and a new opportunity to provide a home for a disabled person when one is needed, rather than having to wait for it to be built.
There are, of course, other features that local authorities and housing associations will think are worth putting in this kind of housing and our circular mentions a couple of them. But the essential point is that mobility housing will be suitable either for a family with a disabled member or an able-bodied family. This makes for good planning and the flexible use of housing stock. The housing needs of most disabled people can be met by adaptations, specially designed housing and "mobility" housing. These ways are being considered in greater detail in the course of a study being conducted in the Department of the Environment.
However, in many cases it is already clear what would suit handicapped people best—and most of them will have preferences and views which will reinforce or

guide the thinking of authorities and voluntary bodies and enable expert advice to be applied sensitively and with understanding. The Government are anxious that authorities should not wait on the publication of the study, and that the period from now until the study and the advice based on it can be published should be used to good effect. We need to get more dwellings provided. We need to provide better-planned housing which can be used by the disabled.
My last point I make without any disrespect to hon. Members. if we send out circulars, if we exhort, study and probe, as we intend to do, in the monitoring of the circular, as it were, in due time, that is not enough. What one needs to have is a personal interest by hon. Members and by the public and councillors, so that when we look at sites in our constituencies and see schemes being put forward by our local authorities, we take the initiative on the ground as well and ask whether they are including in these schemes provision of some kind for the disabled and those in need.
Often we shall find that they have missed out, and if we pick up the query and probe early enough on the ground, without waiting for the schemes to be submitted to the Department for loan sanction, we shall find that we can get in early enough to persuade the policy makers at that level to give consideration to this aspect of the policy which they would have done if it had been brought to their attention previously. We have individual responsibility as well as a policy responsibility at parliamentary and Government level.
I hope that I have made it clear that, both as a Minister and personally as a Member, I am concerned to see an expansion of provision in this respect. We shall be following up the circular with further work later and we shall be pressing for a much better effort than we have seen so far since the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mrs. Chalker: I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks, but I am not entirely satisfied with them. Whilst I quite understand his wish for me not to press the amendment on this occasion, may I endorse what he said about national figures? I do not know whether


it is significant—it had better not be for much longer—but a number of hon. Members who are most interested in the disabled, or who speak most frequently about them, come from the North-West. There, for every specifically designed dwelling for a disabled person there are 1,300 disabled people waiting. That number, 1,300, had better stick in our minds. I hope very much that the monitoring which the Department will do and which hon. Members will do will make the assessment and the future building requirements decrease that number to one which is reasonable. It must not be just in the pious hopes that are sometimes expressed, but in reality for the future of the disabled.
With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DISPOSALS OF LAND FROM TAX ON CHARGEABLE GAINS.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 30, leave out "or an unregistered self-build society".
Its purpose is in effect to provide that when the corporation disposes of land to a self-build society, the corporation is to pay any tax arising on gains in the value of the land.
The clause, by inserting a new Section 342A into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, provides relief from tax on chargeable gains. Together with Section 342 of that Act, the combined effect is to treat the corporation and registered housing associations, for the purposes of tax on chargeable gains, in a way somewhat akin to a company and its group of subsidiaries.
Transfers of property within the group are treated as giving rise to neither a gain nor a loss. The group is regarded as a single entity and the tax becomes chargeable only when an asset is disposed of to some outside person or body. The gain is then calculated by reference to the cost of the asset when it was first acquired by any member of the group, together with any expenditure on it since.

The corporation is required when it disposes of land normally to do so at the market value.
The effect of the clause on disposals by the corporation to self-build societies would be that the corporation would be relieved of tax on those disposals, but when the society came to dispose of the land and dwellings on it to its members, the society would have to pay tax on the full amount of the gain in value since the land was first acquired by the group.
Since self-build societies are normally transient affairs whose object is to wind up as soon as they have completed their dwellings, there is little point in registering them and it is unlikely that any will be registered. It is thus more appropriate to treat them as outside the group of registered associations and the corporation for tax purposes, and the amendment has the effect of putting them outside. The corporation will pay any tax arising on the disposal of land to a self-build society.

Mr. Emery: We thank the Minister for his short and concise explanation of what appears to be a rather strange amendment and we are prepared to support him in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

THE REGISTER OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 11, line 37, at end insert
or
(c) is a housing association not a registered charity but which was founded by a registered charity other than an exempt charity and its rules or any agreement entered into in connection with its formation so state'.
In the interests of the House, may I simply ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept the amendment, or, if not, to comment upon it?

Mr. Freeson: It would have been a kindness if the hon. Member had been prepared to withdraw the amendment instead of asking me to comment on something he has not argued.
The position is that the scheme of registration in Part II is based upon the existing powers of control of the Charity


Commission and of the Registry of Friendly Societies. These two existing systems of registration and control are supplemented by the additional powers of control conferred on the corporation in Part II.
The bodies which may be eligible for registration are accordingly limited in the clause to registered charities and Industrial and Provident Societies Act societies. Companies Act companies, such as are the Abbeyfield Societies, may be registered as housing associations only in so far as they are registered charities. The Charities Act 1960 does not apply to charities in Scotland, so there is a potential problem for Scottish Abbeyfield societies which wish to register in order to benefit from public loans and grants, confined by the Bill after the operative date to registered associations.
The solution proposed in this amendment is, however, unacceptable. It would add to the two broad classes of associations which may be registered, and which are subject to existing controls by the Charity Commission or the Registry of Friendly Societies, a third, subject to control by neither. Nor does the amendment provide for the application to such bodies of the corporation's powers of control in Part II. To accept the amendment would destroy the registration scheme. To amend the Bill further to apply controls to such a third category would require numerous complicated amendments for which there is neither time nor justification in relation to the problems which have emerged for organisations such as Abbeyfield. I hope that the explanation and comment I have given will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. Emery: May I say that we are not immensely happy about the position of the Abbeyfield societies. In certain areas they are doing a good job and as a charity they will need to be covered. I gather from what the Minister has said that he understands and is sympathetic towards that point of view. I hope that the Abbeyfield societies will argue their case with him and ensure that they are covered. As I see that that matter is accepted by a nod of assent from the Minister, I urge my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

ACQUISITION OF LAND

Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 12, line 37, at end insert:
'(7) A housing association whose application or registration has been refused by the Housing Corporation shall have a right of appeal—
(a) in matters of procedure concerning the Corporation's use of powers through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and
(b) in matters relating to the substance of a decision to the Housing Associations' Registration Advisory Committee'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 1, in Clause 14, page 13, line 2, at end insert:
'(2) A Housing Association whose registration has been refused by the Housing Corporation shall have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State who may if he thinks fit seek the advice of the Advisory Committee before makng a decision on the appeal'.

Mr. Morris: This matter was raised in Committee. At that time the Committee was concerned about safeguards because of the nature of the industry, it being young and dynamic. The Minister said at the time that he would give the matter further consideration. The amendment reflects some of the comment that was made in Committee. I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment upon his further reflection.

Mr. Freeson: I have reflected further on the extensive discussions which we had in Committee on the appeals procedure. I still adhere to the view that I expressed then—namely, that the formal appeals system would be inappropriate.
I accept, as I indicated in Committee, that it is essential to reassure housing associations that registration will be carried out fairly and properly. I consider that the right answer is to strengthen the Housing Associations Registration Advisory Committee. I gave some indication of that in Committee and I


confirm that I consider that to be the right answer. I believe that the advisory committee should be strengthened not by giving it automatic right to consider individual appeals but by strengthening its rôle in setting criteria for registration.
It is intended to table an amendment in another place requiring the corporation to establish criteria for registration after consulting the advisory committee. It is considered that that will usefully tighten up the link between the corporation and the committee.
Perhaps even more important, I propose to ensure that the membership of the advisory committee is such as to leave no doubt as to the strength of its control over the whole registration process. I wish to tell the House that Mr. Harold Campbell, a man with long and valuable experience in the voluntary housing movement, and a one-time vice-chairman of the Housing Corporation, has agreed to act as chairman of the advisory committee when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is an acceptance which I feel sure will be warmly endorsed by both sides of the House.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. However, I am sure that he is aware that the drawback of having criteria for registration built into the Bill is that it can be challenged in the courts. Before the amendment is moved in another place and the matter comes back here, I would like him to consider whether it would not be preferable to have the matter referred back to the Secretary of State rather than to have a right of appeal to the courts, which could be productive of far more dispute than the arrangement envisaged in the amendment. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said and I hope that it will be possible for what he has said to be accepted, but I would like him to think about the matter again.

Mr. Freeson: I am always willing to think again about a matter of this kind that is causing concern. There are some days to go before the matter will be raised in another place. It would be less than fair and honest on my part if I did not say, having thought carefully about this issue and having read the Committee reports, that almost certainly the Govern

ment will pursue the road which I have already indicated.

Mr. Michael Morris: We are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has approached this point, particularly the membership issue. We would want to reserve the right to see the amendment in detail but with that proviso may I say how much we welcome his attitude?
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34

DECLARATION OF HOUSING ACTION AREAS

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 34, line 23, leave out 'appearing to the authority to be suitably qualified' and insert
'normally resident in the area'.
I will follow the pattern set by other hon. Members and speak quite briefly. I felt worried when I read the words in the Bill in Clause 34, line 23:
persons appearing to the authority to be suitably qualified".
I immediately began to think about what criteria would be used to find out whether a person was suitably qualified. I would like to be able to think that an association of residents would be accepted as suitably qualified persons to submit a report supporting the declaration of a housing action area. If the Minister can give me that assurance I shall feel much happier.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). These words "suitably qualified" need to be spelled out more clearly. In the view of most people I have consulted, it is thought that such people will have to be professionally qualified. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has that in mind, but that is how it is being interpreted. We must be in a position to allow people living in the area to declare how they think the area should be developed.

Mr. Kaufman: I would like to reassure both of my hon. Friends. Under the clause there is nothing to prevent residents in potential housing action areas, or


residents' associations, from submitting reports on such areas or assisting others in compiling them. Indeed, I go further and say that it is expected that they will do so and that the authorities concerned may well decide that they are suitably qualified. The Department of the Environment has heard of one or two residents' groups which have already suggested that their areas should be declared as housing action areas.
I point out to my hon. Friend that to confine the reference to the submission on potential housing action areas to persons normally resident in an area would restrict the scope for declarations and would restrict the definition of housing action areas. For instance, it would exclude local authority officers, councillors, consultants, civic societies, housing associations, and Members of Parliament. I intend to press my local authority to declare housing action areas in parts of my constituency in which I am not resident. The part I live in deserves to be called a housing action area but there are other parts which are even worse. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend ought not to be insulting towards the premier city of the land.
My hon. Friend's amendment would exclude such persons and organisations unless the people concerned happen to live in the housing action area. It is unreasonable to dispense with the obvious qualification that the person concerned should at least appear to the authority with the responsibility for housing to be suitably qualified.
Residents and their associations have a rôle to play in seeking to initiate housing action area action. But there is no doubt that on merits and in practice the local authority will, and normally should, take the lead. It is a question not only of the need for such action but of the resources required to carry through an action programme and of priority between one potential housing action area and another. In declared housing action areas residents will have a prominent place, and will be involved in proposals. Clauses 35(4) and 39 secure that they are involved.
In any case, the amendment would not oblige a local authority to act on a report, no matter by whom it was submitted. It would remain at the discretion of an authority to consider whether it should declare as a housing action area

an area which was the subject of a report. That is obviously appropriate, as a housing action area could not be effectively dealt with without a commitment by the authority.
I hope that both my hon. Friends, whose arguments I take seriously, will be reassured by what I have said, and that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will not feel obliged to press the amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and for the amount of detailed thought he has given to the amendment. On the basis of his statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 35, line 5, leave out 'act in accordance with' and insert 'have regard to'.
The amendment arises from an argument presented in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who sought to replace the power to give guidance by a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations subject to negative resolution of either House. He argued that "guidance" that had to be complied with was not guidance but, in effect, "instructions", and that instructions should be a matter for delegated legislation, subject to parliamentary control and embodied in statutory instruments rather than in departmental circulars.
There was a wide-ranging debate in Committee, as a consequence of which I made it clear that it was not the intention to use the clause to impose detailed control by the Secretary of State on local authorities in their housing action area declarations. The aim is rather to give guidance in general terms which will be flexible to take account of the wide variation of circumstances in different districts and regions. The intention of the amendment is to clarify this and to meet the objections raised in Committee to the original wording—inherited from the Housing and Planning Bill—that it implied a degree of control over local authorities for which no sufficient justification could be given in the context of housing action areas.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for making this concession. This may be a small point, but it is fundamental. I would prefer subsection (3) to be deleted, because if the guidance is truly guidance the Minister does not require statutory authority to give it. He could simply issue a circular, to which the local authority would no doubt have regard. There is no practical difference between that arrangement and the one which is suggested by the Minister, and I am therefore happy to go along with what he proposes.
As I said I would in Committee, I have referred the point as a general one to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It would be a serious matter if it became a habit for Ministers to have power, in effect, to give instructions in the form of delegated legislation by means of a circular which had statutory backing. I hope that the Select Committee will take that matter seriously as a general one, not in relation to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

ACQUISITION OF LAND IN HOUSING ACTION AREAS

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 41, line 10, at end insert:
'() Section 41(1) of the Bill should be preceded by a new inserted subsection (4) to read:
(4) In Section 72(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1964 the words 'a local authority have made an order under Part I of Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 (the Act of 1946) shall be deleted and replaced with the words 'a local authority have resolved that an order be made and submitted under Part I of Schedule 1 etc …' and after the word 'family' at the end of the section there should be added
'Provided that this section shall cease to apply where an order is not confirmed by the "confirming authority" under the Act of 1946'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 20, at end insert:
'(c) the compulsory purchase order became effective from the date of the decision of the local authority to make it'.

Mr. Stallard: Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am aware of the discussion which took place there. Anyone who has been associated with local government will agree about the need for some simplified and speedier procedure to deal with compulsory purchase orders.
I was hoping to be able to go into much more detail on these amendments than time permits. Amendment No. 7, for example, is a very small but important one designed to speed up the compulsory purchase order precedure and to extend the effect of the protection clauses for tenants outlined in subsection (4) by making a CPO take effect from the time that the resolution to make it is passed by the local authority rather than from the time that it is formally submitted to the Secretary of State.
Those of us who have experience of these matters know that there can be a worrying delay between the two procedures, and I ask for the protection for tenants to be brought back to the stage where the local authority decides to make the application for the CPO rather than after the long delay which often ensues.

Mr. Kaufman: Although my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), like me, is anxious that the delays occasioned by the processing of compulsory purchase orders should be reduced to a minimum, nevertheless there is a very important structure of checks and balances within that procedure which has to be protected for the benefit of people living in compulsory purchase order areas. There was a time when my own constituency appeared to consist of nothing but CPO areas, and I was as concerned about what became of the peope living in them as I was that the local authority should be able to demolish unfit dwellings and get better dwellings erected. Therefore, I temper my sympathy with my hon. Friend by warning him of the necessity to protect those checks and balances within a procedure streamlined as much as possible.
I accept that some time often elapses between the local authority resolving to make a CPO and its being made. But there is a serious difficulty of principle about the way in which my hon. Friend wishes to extend protection to tenants of properties involved in the interval. An


authority's resolution to make a CPO is of uncertain status in law and need never be followed up by an actual CPO.
That being so, a better way to tackle the problem would be for local authorities to relate their programmes of acquisitions realistically to the number of conveyancing and administrative staff whom they can make available, thus avoiding long delays. There are some London boroughs, in particular, whose attitude in this matter is not as admirable as it might be. Large areas of certain London boroughs are blighted for periods far longer than necessary simply because the authorities slap on CPOs without making sure that they have adequate staff to follow through the procedure speedily—

Mr. Ronald Brown: Which boroughs has my hon. Friend in mind? Is he aware that, due to the fact that the Government have not yet decided on London weighting, we cannot get sufficient staff?

Mr. Kaufman: I have no specific boroughs in mind with which my hon. Friend is connected. What is more, my hon. Friend is the last person with whom I should care to tangle on the subject of London weighting. But I have certain London boroughs in mind. If others of my hon. Friends who are involved in those boroughs are present and care to provoke me, I may be inclined to mention them. However, we ought to maintain the decencies over public grief if we can.
We believe that local authorities should think carefully about CPOs. Clause 45(2) should also help by making it easier for authorities to obtain information about the ownership of premises in a reasonable time.
In view of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Stallard: I accept what my hon. Friend said, although I am not 100 per cent. happy about his reply. I, too, would have liked further information about the London boroughs to which he referred. I hope that he was not including the borough with which I am connected.
I should have liked to make a number of suggestions about the speeding up of the compulsory purchase order procedure, but I recognise that this is not the time to do so.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend, as far as he went and as far as my amendment goes. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

ASSISTANCE FOR CARRYING OUT ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 42, line 17, before 'environmental' insert 'social and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 9, in page 42, line 23, leave out 'amenities' and insert 'social and environmental provisions'.

No. 10, in page 42, line 26, after 'building' insert 'provision'.

No. 11, in page 42, line 30, before 'environmental' insert 'social and'.

No. 12, in page 42, line 32, at beginning insert 'social and'.

No. 13, in page 42, line 34, before 'environmental' insert 'social and'.

Mr. Stallard: Again, I am conscious of the debate that took place in Committee on Clauses 43 and 44. Therefore, I shall not weary the House by making a long speech.
Clauses 43 and 44 seem to introduce some kind of face-lift grant to be given in cases where housing accommodation is improved to less than the full improvement standard to assist with external works and improvements within the curtilage of buildings.
My opinion, after much experience, is that it is not good enough to tart up these curtilages in stress areas. Something more is needed. I suggest that a grant should be made available to improve the surroundings in stress areas in a much wider sense than a couple of trees or a bit of new pavement. We must think in wider terms than that for stress areas. Therefore, a grant should be made available for the provision of much-needed play spaces, and community centres and social facilities should be envisaged when we talk about the improvement of stress areas. It may be necessary to subsidise improvements by the closure of streets


as well as the planting of trees and the provision of play spaces.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that that is the kind of face-lift that he has in mind rather than what appears to be a very niggly bit of tarting up of stress areas.

Mr. Tyler: Not having been a member of the Committee on this Bill I did not have an opportunity of speaking to this clause.
I warmly support what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). I think that the environmental works referred to in the clause, while admirable in themselves, are a narrow definition of what is required.
Many hon. Members may recall that an initial pilot scheme for environmental improvement was carried out in the Deeplish area of Rochdale. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was instrumental in bringing about that scheme. The lesson which was quickly learned from that scheme was that small-scale environmental improvements are not nearly as important as the wider improvements that can be made to whole housing areas.
These amendments are important. Housing today does not become obsolete because its structure fails to conform to modern standards, not because there are or are not trees but because the social facilities of an area are not up to the standard that we now expect for our people.
I do not want to detain the House long. However, I must mention one specific facility which often makes all the difference to the potential of an area and whether it becomes obsolete. I refer to day centres for pre-school children. They are enormously important. I should like to add that specific point to what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that these factors are not being overlooked in what may be a somewhat narrow definition of environmental improvement.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) on making a constituency speech on behalf

of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), wherever he may be. I am grateful to him for intervening in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said he was concerned about proposals for a niggly bit of tarting up. If my hon. Friend had not spoken in this debate, using those words, I would not have dreamed of describing the amendment in that way, because I dare not offend my hon. Friend. Since the hon. Member for Bodmin voted against us once tonight, I feel able to offend him a little.

Mr. Tyler: I have voted with the Government twice.

Mr. Kaufman: If he has voted twice, then I shall offend him twice as much.

Mr. Tyler: I have voted twice for you and once against.

Mr. Kaufman: Twice is not enough. The eye of a needle is too small for twice.
This amendment, as it stands, although I totally welcome what it seeks to do, is not necessary. If it were necessary, then I would be very anxious indeed to accept its implications. We have taken advice and we are assured that the word "amenities" is wide enough to embrace social and environmental provisions. We agree it should be wide enough to do that. I took part in a discussion on this point today with the Minister. I thought I heard him say that this could include provision for topless clubs in housing action areas. I later realised he was talking about toddlers' clubs. In some housing action areas the two could coexist happily.
We have environmental improvements very much in mind. To change the name given to the work that may be assisted under the clause without changing the definition would have no effect. The amendments are unnecessary. We have complete sympathy with my hon. Friend's objectives.

Mr. Stallard: On the basis of the assurance that the Minister has just given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 43

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 43, line 26, leave out '£50' and insert '£200'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 15, in page 43, line 34, leave out '£50' and insert '£200'.

Mr. Stallard: I should have thought that the purpose of this amendment was self-evident.
If the Minister's assurance means what he says it means, then he should be able to accept this small amendment. If the Minister accepts that "environmental" includes social amenities, in the way which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) and I suggested, he will agree that £50 is not sufficient for the kind of social amenities we envisage. Therefore lie ought to be able to accept my modest suggestion that that £50 be increased to a sum similar to the figure of £200 which was included in a previous Act. I hope the Minister will accept this small adjustment to carry out the kind of social improvements we envisage.

Mr. Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on having his amendment called, because we debated an amendment of this nature during the Committee stage and had it thrown out. We see considerable force in the argument he has put forward.
I would have hoped that the Minister would give very serious consideration to this point because a sum of £50 is inadequate today. A move to £200—although I believe the Minister has the power to alter this at any time—would be desirable. I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept the figure of £200 now and to go forward from there.

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is a noted spendthrift. Therefore, I accept what he says. But I do not accept what is said by an Opposition who last week were telling us to spend tens of millions of pounds subsidising

people who use night storage heaters and are now asking us to spend millions more on general improvement areas and housing action areas, at a time when we face a grave economic crisis. We are being told by the City columns to cut Government expenditure because of that crisis—one that we inherited from the previous Government after their spendthrift and lackadaisical—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and I are, as always, in agreement. The House could get on very well if he and I could conduct its business jointly.
I say to my hon. Friend more or less what I said in Committee. Let us see how we go. The sum of £50 may well not be satisfactory, and we may well have to reconsider it. In any case, we took the power in Committee for the Secretary of State to vary the sum, not just generally, as in the previous Government's short-sighted and skinflint Housing and Planning Bill, but by reference—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) wishes to provoke me, he had better see me outside. I shall contain myself in the interests of making progress.
We have made this change in Committee, which will enable my right hon. Friend to vary the sum of £50 not just generally but by reference to housing action areas declared by particular authorities or description of authority and to particular housing action areas or description of housing action areas. That gives us an initial flexibility which I am sure will appeal to my hon. Friend.
Let us get the country right, after the terrible mess we inherited, and see how we go from there.

Mr. Stallard: My hon. Friend the Minister knew that he would touch my weak spot when he appealed to me to get the country right first, after the shocking mess in which it was left by the previous Government. He knew that that must be my top priority. Torn by my desire to see social improvements in the areas concerned and my desire to put the country right, I must on balance accept my hon. Friend's assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use his discretion to increase the sum to up to £200 for the kind of improvement in question.
On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 44, line 31, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 34 above, with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of the London borough in which district the area, or part of the area is situated; and likewise London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 34 above, with respect to areas that are situated in other London boroughs but only with the agreement of the London borough(s) concerned.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it may be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 62, in page 44, line 35, at beginning insert:
'The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 34 above with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of any local authority in which district the area or any part of the area is situated; and in'.

No. 50, leave out Schedule 4.

Mr. Townsend: The clause and Schedule 4 give the GLC powers to declare housing action areas without the agreement of the boroughs concerned. That is the whole point. In addition, new powers are given in respect of general improvement areas. That was not even contemplated in the previous Bill.
With the best will in the world, I believe that the GLC would experience the greatest procedural and resource difficulties in dealing with housing action areas without the active co-operation and assistance of the boroughs in question.
My hon. Friends and I believe that the clause represents an unnecessary and potentially damaging departure from one of the basic principles which has so far been followed in London local government, namely, that in matters of local housing improvement the GLC should not

act except with the consent of the borough concerned. Past experience in local government suggests that default powers such as these are largely ineffective. Normal persuasion and encouragement by a Government Department are usually sufficient to produce action.
Does any Member on either side of the House seriously imagine that the GLC would be able to operate successfully in a borough which is determined to oppose it? The treatment of action areas involves matters which are bound to remain of local concern—for example planning, building control and local environmental matters, and, more important, social and community work. Even if it could be done in practice—and I do not believe that it could—it would not result in more expeditious treatment of housing action areas.
It would be necessary to increase such staff as public health inspectors and building surveyors. Without their services the sort of schemes we are considering would be totally impracticable. The GLC would need to recruit specialist staff, of which there is already a considerable shortage. It would be necessary to poach such staff from boroughs by offering increased rates of pay, and as usual the ratepayers would have to meet the cost of these increases. Before the GLC could put forward proposals it would, presumably, have to compare the areas concerned with other areas in London. This would require extensive surveys throughout the stress areas. Where would the staff come from to do this? Local government knowledge would be essential in carrying out such surveys.
The Secretary of State, on Second Reading, talked about the GLC being a strategic authority. If we are to adopt labels, I claim to be a GLC man rather than a borough man. I have read carefully the Secretary of State's comments on the GLC as a strategic authority. I broadly agree with the Secretary of State. I suspect that he had in mind the numerous reports on housing in London, including the Greve Report, all of which emphasise the need for the GLC to be a strong strategic authority.
The GLC has tremendous tasks in the dockland areas and the stress areas, as well as a considerable rôle at Thames-mead. It is involved with the new and expanding town and seaside and country


towns. The GLC is a strategic authority and is fully committed as a strategic authority.
My hon. Friends and I do not wish to detract from the powers of the GLC, but we do not believe that the change in power which is proposed is required by County Hall. The London boroughs should be required to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State programmes for dealing with housing action areas on a five-year basis, sending a copy of their plans to County Hall.
The LBA has made quite clear that the London boroughs are willing to do this. It has in addition promised action in any case of a borough being difficult. This is the way forward, through persuasion, not confrontation. Occasionally Opposition hon. Members use that phrase in a different context. Now I push it back at them and suggest persuasion, not confrontation in London housing.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any proposals by, for example, the City of Westminster for housing action areas? Is the City of Westminster proposing to take action by itself in relation to Pimlico? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it would be desirable to have elbow jogging of those London boroughs which are notoriously slow to take action of this sort?

Mr. Townsend: The elbow jogging should come from the LBA, not from the Government. Since 1964 there has been some friction between County Hall and the London boroughs and there is a danger of this attitude getting out of control I cannot omit from my brief contribution the fact that County Hall is particularly unpopular in outer London. The outer London boroughs detest the recent rate increases of the GLC and are scared stiff of the municipalisation programme which they feel will be highly damaging to them in the long run, so they are inclined to view County Hall's activities with the gravest suspicion. The very fact that County Hall is insisting on this proposal, against the advice of the LBA, suggests that something curious is going on.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Freeson: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have received no pres

sure whatever from the GLC on this part of the Bill?

Mr. Townsend: May I draw the Minister's attention to the letter he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight, in which he said:
The GLC have themselves said in the letter to my Department that they consider their reserve power vital.

Mr. Freeson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has taken my point. We drafted the Bill without such pressure. What has transpired since in the discussions and exchanges is another matter. I am stating a fact: there was no pressure from the GLC on the Government to do this. It was a Government initiative.

Mr. Townsend: I cannot claim to have been party to the discussion between County Hall and the Government, but the letter I quoted seemed to me pretty clear. I also note that the Minister said in that letter:
We see the GLC powers as a back-up, no more.
That presumably is his case, but he is in danger of souring the relationships between County Hall and the London boroughs for a long time to come.
To the second half of the first amendment I have added something about councils preying on other councils. I will not go into detail, but at the moment Camden is in dispute with Barnet, as is Brent, and Lambeth is in dispute with Croydon. It is not exactly a case of "Happy families" in London at present. The wording of the amendment is required to stop the GLC from getting around the problem by using another borough to do its work for it.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) to stir up the Liberal cohorts to support my hon. Friends in the Lobby. He will be supporting not only those hon. Members who have put their names to the amendment but also the unanimity of the Labour-controlled LBA and the views of the London boroughs, I suspect both officers and members. If the Minister went out into the streets of London tonight and put this issue basically to the people of London, I am sure that they would express overwhelming support for


their boroughs as opposed to County Hall. Does he deny that?
In a nutshell, the Secretary of State is risking too much to achieve too little.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I am very glad that the amendment has been moved, because it gives me the opportunity to say on behalf of my constituents how delighted they are that the provision to which it relates is in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) said, the City of Westminster, to understate the position, is not always as active as it might be in these matters.
Persuasion and encouragement have not achieved the results and my constituents are now in the unenviable position that, while they have a Labour GLC and a Labour MP and, in the northern part, entirely Labour councillors, the combined weight of Marylebone and South Westminster means that, despite the views and problems of the constituents in Paddington, north and south, they have to suffer the policies and the neglect of a predominantly Tory council. They will welcome very much the fact that there is an authority other than the City of Westminster to which they can look for positive action where it is not being taken. Persuasion and encouragement have not produced results.

Mr. Townsend: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that if the borough he has mentioned did not wish the GLC to move in, the GLC could do a proper job of work without its co-operation?

Mr. Latham: I was coming to that because I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's observation that it would be impossible for the GLC to operate in a place as close to its own central headquarters as Westminster if the city council were opposed to its intervention. The words he used were that the GLC could not operate successfully if the local authority concerned was determined to oppose it.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the respectable, dignified, traditional, convenional, orthodox City of Westminster Tory-controlled council will disobey the law and obstruct the Bill? We have heard much lately about carrying out the provisions of the law under the Housing

Finance Act and I do not think that we shall meet the kind of obstruction the hon. Gentleman seems to believe Westminster City Council would offer.
What is likely to happen in the case of Westminster and Paddington in particular is that they will be so horrified at the thought that the GLC is likely to step in unless they get a move on and pull their socks up that that may be sufficient sanction in itself to produce results. First, they would object to the GLC doing it and, secondly, they would regard it as undignified for them to be in such a state of default that the GLC felt it necessary to intervene.
I support the clause as it stands and hope that the amendment will be defeated because within Westminster there are double standards. I invite hon. Members to visit The Mall and Parliament Square and then look at some of the worst roads and housing districts in West London, which exist in Paddington, and try to convince themselves that they are all part and parcel of the same London borough. It is because these double standards exist that this provision is needed to protect people such as my constituents, and I hope that the Government will use such power as a model for other housing legislation, because outside intervention is the only hope for many homeless or badly housed people living in housing conditions of appalling disrepair in my constituency.

Mr. John Moore: I must first express my interest, although after the comments of the Under-Secretary of State I do not know whether, as a Tory, I am allowed to do so because I cannot speak for miners or one or two other interests. However, perhaps he will let me try to redeem myself by supporting the Labour-controlled London Boroughs Association. I do so as a resident and ex-councillor of Merton and as the Member for part of the London borough of Croydon. I do, therefore, have a strong interest.
This is an important and crucial matter. I will quote again from the letter sent by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and to members of the Standing Committee, because it says:
The GLC have themselves said in a letter to my Department that although they consider their reserve power vital the Council have no


desire to act against the wishes of a London borough and hope they will be able to proceed with the full co-operation of the Boroughs".
That sounds terribly innocuous and very sweet, simple and sentimental.
May I draw the attention of hon. Members, however, to the intervention in Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who said:
can the Minister say, if he has this concept of a reserve authority to come in in default of the local authority, what provision he will make for cities other than London? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd May 1974; c. 244.]
We must recognise that this is where the beginning of the nub of the problem lies. To what will this lead? In terms of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said:
When we had reorganisation of London government in 1963 the intention was to give exclusive housing powers to all the new London boroughs. The GLC retained housing powers in a sense by accident because it was appreciated by the framers of that Act at the time that it was impossible to transfer overnight all the housing estates belonging to the GLC to the boroughs in whose areas they were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd May 1974; c. 248.]
By historical accident, therefore, the GLC was a housing authority.
I refer again to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and the Minister's endeavour to answer it. The Minister said:
For good or ill—I think ill—there are no housing powers given to the upper tier authorities in the Local Government Act 1972 … To put it another way, in London we are dealing with the GLC, but it is a housing authority in its own right… Elsewhere in the country
—I draw the attention of hon. Members to the phrase "elsewhere in the country", though we are talking only of London now—
that is not the position and, if we tried to write them into the Bill, we should be giving powers to authorities that did not have housing powers. There is a great difficulty there, which may have to be remedied by future legislation.
How innocuous that seems. The historical accident has created in the GLC a housing authority, which is used in this case as an excuse to try to participate and take away the decisions from the boroughs. That is the key. This is a fundamental change. It has not happened

in London before. We are endeavouring to take away from boroughs their decision-making ability. We are endeavouring to do it without their co-operation. [Interruption.] I shall return to the points made by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). In Committee the Minister said that the practicalities had to be considered and that the position
would be at the least no worse than if the London boroughs were left entirely alone in such circumstances and the work was not done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd May 1974; c. 245.]
That illustrates the total impracticality.
I am not questioning the Minister's desires or those of the hon. Member for Paddington. But who will they use to set up these authorities? Which members of the GLC staff will they use? It is easy to say "We shall send in people to do this", but where are the public health inspectors? Anyone with any experience in local government work will know of the extreme difficulty in obtaining special technical officers and public health inspectors.
Clearly there is one area in which they can obtain them. To develop a housing action area, people must know intimately the local area, and to do that they have obviously to compete on the ground with the officers already in the local area. That will clearly mean that those in the area in other activities will suffer. By taking people away from one job, one does not make that job disappear. Unfortunately I was not a Member of the Committee, but from reading the report I find that the Minister gave no indication that resources would be provided to carry out this function.

Mr. Freeson: Regarding the point that the hon. Gentleman has been pursuing and, I gather, will still pursue, is he aware that the GLC already has such a department? If he cares to visit it, I am sure that the staff will give him a very interesting chat. On the Albert Embankment there is a department which deals specifically with improvement areas and is quite capable of extending itself into housing action areas.

Mr. Moore: The Minister must realise that I—like all citizens in the Greater London area—am aware of the degree to which that department is already overstretched.
The final point concerns the degree to which the basis of this proposal is totally undemocratic. We have here, supposedly, a Parliament which is concerning itself with the break-up of power from the centre. The London Boroughs Association is dominated by the Labour Party and is unanimous in disagreeing with this proposal. in spite of that the plan is to be pushed through. I ask hon. Members to join me in making sure that we rid our boroughs of central Government. London needs that help and the country will need it later.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am glad that I have been able to entice the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir M. Worsley) back into the Chamber. I was surprised, since we are also debating Amendment No. 62, which stands in the names of the hon. Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Chelsea, that both hon. Members, who had been here a few moments before the debate began, left. Their amendment would have provided that the Greater London Council could exercise the powers of a local authority under Clause 34 only with the agreement of the local authority in whose district that area was situated.
I think that I am doubly qualified to speak on the amendments before us having represented for 3½ years Kensington, North, a constituency in the same situation as Paddington—a Labour minority area, deprived in terms of housing and in a Tory-controlled borough. Now, however, I represent a part of the London borough of Morden which, having recently transferred to Conservative control, has decided virtually wholly to ignore Government Circular 70/74 and not to acquire housing under the terms of that circular, going ahead instead with the sale of council housing notwithstanding the representations in the circular.
If we leave to certain London boroughs the responsibility of carrying out the purposes of the Bill, meagre as some of us feel that the provisions are, the job will never be done. The hon. Member for Kensington is still not here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes he is." I beg his pardon. I am glad that he is here because he will know the position in the North Kensington area. It is the intention of

the council in that area to declare only the Colville-Tavistock area as a housing action area. If it had been left to the local council, Swinbrook would have been left to the mercy of the private landlord, but the GLC has taken responsibility for that part and action is being taken there too.
The hon. Member will know that the measures taken by the London borough in that area are totally inadequate to meet the area's needs. I wonder whether the hon. Member feels that the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, on whose behalf Amendment No. 62 is tabled, is tackling the problems of the area adequately. I should be glad to hear him defend the council's position publicly.
The needs of that area have been neglected for so long by the borough council that it is likely that only pressure from the GLC will stimulate the council into doing the jobs that need to be done. For many years there have been in the Department of the Environment—and before that when it was the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—in the minds of civil servants categories of local authorities. There were Left-wing Labour boroughs, Right-wing Labour boroughs, Left-wing Conservative boroughs, Right-wing Conservative boroughs and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is for that borough that this provision is needed, and to a lesser extent the borough that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham).
Reserve powers are essential if the needs of the most deprived areas are to be tackled. That will not be done if the job is left to certain London boroughs. We know that they will not do so and that they respond only under the most tremendous pressure from above. I accept that the borough council of the area concerned is ideally the most suitable body to carry out the job, but if it will not do it the GLC must have reserve powers, and the provisions as they stand in the Bill are essential.

Mr. Michael Neubert: In case there should be any doubt, let me declare that I am not only a London Member but a constituency Member for the London borough of Havering, and an outer London Member at that.
We gave this matter a working over in Committee, as a result of which the Minister undertook to give full consideration to the arguments which were put forward. In due course we received his letter indicating that he had decided on balance to leave things as they were. There was no surprise about that because he acknowledged that this innovation was his own idea. It was not prompted by the officials of his Department, nor was it part of the previous Government's Bill.
The amendment asks something of the Minister that will no doubt be painful to him—namely, to disown his brainchild, to cast it out and never to let it darken his door again. We must do so because there is a principle at stake. The Minister has given us his reasons for this variation in the Bill—namely, the intention to get things done if there is no other course open to him. That is all very laudable, but there are two essentials to achieve, one being the will and the second the resources.
I join with my hon. Friends in doubting whether the GLC has the necessary resources. To give one illustration, I refer to an area of activity in which it seems to be a little stretched. Is it not true that it has at the moment about 7,000 empty properties on its hands as a result of its purchasing policies and other policies that are under way? Ts there any evidence that it is able to cope with what it has already taken on? Would this provision not overstrain its resources.
The secret has come out more clearly tonight than in Committee. It is clear that this is a means whereby the Minister through the GLC could achieve his political will over a London borough that did not wish to carry out his policy. As a political instrument it will prove to be something of a bludgeon. My hon. Friends and I are apparently speaking for the London Boroughs Association. The boroughs are united in their contempt for this means of going about the matter. They would prefer encouragement and persuasion, whereas the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), although he did not use the word, would favour coercion. We think coercion can only poison the relationships between the authorities in London.
Already there is evidence that the GLC is not averse to entering into sensitive

areas of local authority responsibility. In the London borough of Bromley it is attempting to impose upon the local planning authority its idea of what housing densities should be. That is alien to the original concept of the GLC as a regional authority. It was not intended that it should hover over the boroughs. The GLC had a strategic rôle which was to be separate from the tactical rôle of the London boroughs. Both should have direct access to the Minister. The Minister should not call in aid an intermediate authority, particularly as he is not apparently making any plans at the moment to do so in other cities. That is the very point to which attention has been drawn.
The London boroughs have always jealously guarded the responsibilities assigned to them in the London Government Act. This is one step away from that original concept. It is not justified by the present situation. The Minister, in introducing this proposal, has brought into the Bill an element of controversy that would otherwise have been absent. In our view the Bill would be better without it.

Mr. Tyler: I am in the pleasant position, at this late hour, of being assiduously courted by both the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Bexley-heath (Mr. Townsend). The Minister was trying to drag me and my colleagues through the proverbial eye of a needle. If I ever do get through it I hope that I shall find myself in more celestial company than the present occupants of the Government Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath made an impassioned appeal to my colleagues. To the hon. Member I say that if he and his colleagues had adopted a slightly less shrill tone it might have been easier to support him. On different grounds, I believe that it is wrong in principle to establish in law a duplication of powers which may lead to the solution of problems falling between two stools.
All too often since the London Government Act we have seen that planning has fallen between two stools, because of the duplication of powers. Confusion, controversy and endless delay has resulted from the fact that the planning powers of the London Government Act were not


clearly defined as between the two tiers in London. Those of us now suffering from the effects of the previous administration's Local Government Act in other parts of the country are experiencing the same duplication of powers.
It is for these reasons that, reluctantly, I regard this amendment as necessary. Were the régime of a few years ago still at County Hall, the Ministers would not now be putting forward this proposal. It is not good law to put forward a proposal for the here and now simply because the régime in some boroughs is different from that at County Hall. It is defeatist of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) to take the view that the borough council will never come round to the view he expresses on behalf of the people of the particular part of the borough he represents. It is not the right way to approach the problem to give reserve powers to the GLC.

Mr. Arthur Latham: If this amendment is not carried, and accepting what the hon. Gentleman said about my constituents, what alternative does he offer? Does he suggest that they suffer frustration until the ultimate time when there might be a change?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman must know that we suffer occasionally from the problem of being in a minority. What we have to do is to make that minority into a majority. At every borough election in the Westminster City area it is possible for the policies of the council to be changed. We should change those policies through the ballot box. It is a clear function of Westminster City Council, like all the other boroughs of London, to exercise these housing powers. It is not a clear function of the GLC to exercise these particular housing powers.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is.

Mr. Tyler: Of course I know there are some housing powers which the GLC is specifically assigned. But exactly the same circumstance prevails in all the other metropolitan counties. It may be said that it is necessary, where there is a conflict of opinion about the desirability of a housing action area, to give reserve powers to the metropolitan county. The Minister is not suggesting that, quite rightly, because there would be the dupli

cation and confusion to which I have drawn attention. It is a sad fact that this proposal would not have been made necessary if there were a different régime at County Hall. It is a sad fact that we may find ourselves passing bad laws, on the ground that the Minister cannot trust local authorities to do the job which they were given to do by the local electorate when they were elected.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I have been provoked into taking part in this debate by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). We are talking about London, and the hon. Gentleman has given offence by entering into this debate when his knowledge of the subject is so poor. I am a London boroughs man, and not a GLC man. I therefore regret that we have to do this, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that for years many of us warned the London Boroughs Association that the Tory boroughs would have this done to them if they did not do the things that they ought to do.
The situation in London is that because Tory boroughs are refusing to have housing action areas, people are moving into Labour-controlled constituencies where the authorities are doing the necessary work. Homeless families are moving into our areas because Tory boroughs will not do the work that they are supposed to do. I believe that the fault lies with the Tory Party on the old GLC for not having done the job properly.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I must spring to the defence of the City of Westminster on which I served as a councillor for 12 years. I represented a ward in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham). That was the Maida Vale ward which consisted of about 16,000 people, all of whom, whilst I was there, had a good relationship with both the old Paddington Council and the Westminster City Council, and I reject the suggestion that there are double standards in the City of Westminster.
Westminster is a first-class housing authority, and had the hon. Member for Paddington paid more attention to and indulged in more co-operation with the London borough of the City of Westminster during his tenure of office we


might have had more dialogue. Whilst I was a councillor for the Maida Vale ward the hon. Gentleman distinguished himself by remaining aloof from the London borough of the City of Westminster so I reject his allegation that there are double standards in the city.

Mr. Latham: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has explained that he represented Maida Vale. He will know that six years ago the electors there had had enough and elected a Labour member with a majority of about 700, and they did an even bigger job this time. The remedy mentioned by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) has materialised in Maida Vale, but it will take a little longer to happen in Meriden and Westminster.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The fact is that, for good or ill, the electors of the City of Westminster decided to elect a Conservative-controlled authority. That is their privilege, and we regard it as a tragedy that other London boroughs elected local authorities of their own political choice. It is wrong that powers should be taken for the GLC to intervene in the London boroughs in the way that is proposed here.
I shared with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) membership of the London Boroughs Association for a number of years, and I regret that the Minister has found it necessary to introduce these powers. London is still a sensitive housing area, and it will be for many years. London will overcome this problem—whether it be in central London or in outer London—only if the elected councillors of the boroughs are able to work together to produce the kind of housing results that are needed. Those results will not be achieved by the prospect of confrontation that will come about if the Bill is enacted in its present form. I want to see the time when the GLC and the Greater London boroughs can work together in harmony on housing matters. It is not good enough for the Government to introduce this type of clause into this type of Bill. It will do nothing but create bad feeling between the authorities concerned. For that reason, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Freeson: I will try to dispose of the illusory politics which, unfortunately, have been introduced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler). I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could even have been listening attentively to some of the references which other hon. Members opposite made to the dialogue in Committee. I am not sure that he is aware of the politics of the situation. There is a Labour-controlled GLC and a Labour-controlled London Boroughs Association. This dispute—if dispute there is—is not along party lines.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bodmin will listen to what I am saying. I had the courtesy to listen to his speech. He made some falsely based submissions to the House. However much people may disagree with me, my judgment was not motivated by any feeling that now that we have a Labour-controlled GLC we should do this. I was concerned about the failure of housing strategy in London from very soon after the operation of the London Government Act. This concern has been present through the years when there has been different political control, both at County Hall and at London borough level. It is on that basis that I have reached certain views about housing matters as regards disposition of powers.
The hon. Member for Bodmin, having raised falsely based propositions, said that to introduce this kind of reserve power will result in our falling between two stools. I do not wish to become involved in a discussion on housing matters in London or any other city going beyond the scope of the Bill, because the hour is late. However, if ever there were a charge of strategic policy on urban renewal falling between two stools, if that is the correct phrase in this context, that is the charge which has been levelled by many people about the present disposition of powers in the Greater London area. I state that as a fact of the dialogue, without necessarily taking sides, because the question of the general disposition of housing powers and general housing strategy in London is not for debate tonight. We are concerned with one facet of the housing situation and not the general picture.
What the hon. Gentleman has described as prospectively arising from the reserve powers proposed by the Government in


the Bill is not something which would arise then. People in increasing numbers over the years have been arguing that it is what is happening now in London and is the cost of getting an effective strategy going in this great city.

Mr. Tyler: The point I was making about duplication was that, where powers are duplicated between two tiers of authority, it is all too easy for the authority which should have the prime responsibility to pass the buck. As many London authorities have been happily passing the buck on housing—I will not mention what political belief they have tended to belong to—it is important to recognise that the very objective the Minister is seeking to secure may not be reached, and the situation may be made that much worse if the duplication of powers which he proposes is introduced.

Mr. Freeson: I will not pursue this matter too far, because it is a matter for more general discussion in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in using references and descriptions which do not define the position clearly. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not sufficiently understand—I do not say this critically—what is going on in London. If the paralleling of powers between district and upper tier or county authority is to be described as duplication, that is precisely what we have in London now. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but I do not understand the drift of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Both tiers are housing authorities now and have been for 10 years. The hon. Gentleman argues that there should not be duplication of powers but there is already duplication of powers going well beyond the small area of housing policy dealt with by the Bill. It is not a question of the duplication of powers but of how the powers are deployed.
I must correct a statement that I made in Committee. Under the Local Government Act 1972 limited reserve powers are given to county authorities. Section 194(3) empowers the Secretary of State to authorise the council of a county authority to undertake the provision of housing accommodation in any manner in which the council of a district within the county might do so. But county authorities are not housing authorities in the way that the GLC is a

housing authority notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Bodmin. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give further thought to the grounds on which he based his argument, because they are erroneous. Whatever view he takes should be arrived at on the basis of facts and not of misconceptions.
I turn to the main body of argument which has been put forward. In Committee we had an hour's discussion on this issue on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who is unfortunately unable to be with us tonight. The opposition to these powers came from Opposition Members, on the grounds that default powers were ineffective in practical operation; that comprehensive action could be achieved only if a borough agreed to the GLC declaring a housing action area; that the GLC lacked staff, particularly of public health inspectors, of whom there was a shortage anyway; that there was long-standing rivalry and jealousy between boroughs and the GLC, and that default powers for the GLC in housing action areas, and in general improvement areas under Schedule 5, would only exacerbate that jealousy. They also expressed doubt about the capability of the GLC to take a better view of priorities than the boroughs and about the relevance of the GLC's strategic rôle to housing action areas.
The hon. Member for Hampstead outlined two suggestions which the London Boroughs Association had made as an alternative to the GLC's default powers. First, he suggested that the Secretary of State should put an obligation on the London boroughs to submit to him rolling five-year programmes of housing action areas and general improvement areas, a copy of which they would send to the GLC so that the GLC could express its view. Secondly, he suggested that the London Boroughs Association would be prepared to make every effort to persuade any individual borough to accept responsibility for a particular area. The hon. Member for Hampstead withdrew his amendments on an undertaking by the Minister that he would look again at the question of the GLC's powers.
I did so thoroughly. I then wrote to the hon. Gentleman in terms that have been partially quoted during the debate before the current amendments were tabled, and copies of the letter were sent


to all members of the Committee. In that letter I said that, having thought carefully over the issues, I could not table an amendment to remove the GLC's reserve or default powers.
No new arguments have been tabled this evening, and I do not wish to put forward any new arguments. The relationship betwen the GLC and the boroughs is an issue on which set attitudes have often been taken up about the disposition of powers to ensure more effective housing policy in the twilight areas of our cities. This argument has been going on for 10 years, more strenuously now than in the early days, although arguments were advanced on the London Government Bill about the precise disposition of powers.
11.45 p.m.
The boroughs' position was plainly stated by the hon. Member for Hampstead on Second Reading, when, referring to the LBA. he said:
It does not believe it to be in the interests of good local government in London that the GLC should be able to act as a 'big brother' … in a dispute between borough and GLC the borough's will must prevail.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 138.]
The Government believe that the more constructive approach is to look at the question in terms of problems which have to be solved. I put this point to the hon. Member for Bodmin, who has shown keen awareness of this approach. It is that, at the end of the day, what we must decide is not the question of the disposition of powers as such, but whether the problems are being tackled in the way which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington put forward.
There is more to the GLC's rôle as a strategic housing authority than the influencing of policies over Greater London as a whole in document form, in speeches or other forms, important though that kind of influence must be. It is both desirable and inevitable that it should have the means of implementing the priorities of housing action areas and other aspects of the housing problem.
Priority is what the housing action areas are all about. They are the most important of priorities. The GLC already has considerable resources and housing powers which can and should be used. It should be remembered that the LCC

and the GLC have made a great contribution to slum clearance and new building over the years, and their potential in improvement and rehabilitation should be recognised by London Members. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading,
There is quite enough housing stress in London for which the GLC, the London boroughs and the City all have their work cut out, without quarrelling over who does what."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May 1974; Vol. 873. c. 51.]

Mr. Townsend: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recalling those remarks. These are important differences. We do not want squabbling but if the hon. Gentleman persists we shall have it.

Mr. Freeson: There has been squabbling for the last 10 years and it is going on now. If hon. Members are honest with themselves, they will know perfectly well what I mean. We are not mounting the housing effort in London that we should be mounting, and this is largely because policy and power squabbles are going on all the time. The time must come when such squabbling must stop because the people of London cannot afford to leave these problems of housing untackled. We cannot afford just to leave twilight areas that need urgent treatment, or the question of building homes for people in need in areas which can provide them. The squabbling is there; the set differences of view are there. We must reach a stage where we move away from these things because there is a total London situation to be dealt with, and all parts of London must contribute to solving the problems of the worst areas. We are dealing with one aspect of the problem tonight.
The Government expect the GLC and the boroughs to work together in planning and carrying out a forward programme of housing action areas and general improvement areas as part of a common approach to London's housing problems. We hope that they will generally be able to agree on which areas should be declared and by whom and that, whichever authority formally declares them, each will work with and assist the other. We welcome the LBA's offer to use its good offices in promoting action by boroughs.
Without seeing any advantage in building into the Bill legislative requirements


about the submission of a rolling programme, we see the idea of forward planning and discussion as valuable. But these offers, welcome as they always have been, do not destroy the case for the GLC's reserve powers. If agreement is not forthcoming where housing conditions are such that action under Part IV of the Bill is clearly called for, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the powers the clause gives to the GLC are there to be used. They must be used to get the job done. We cannot wait for more years or another decade for the work to be done where it needs to be done.
The procedure in Schedule 4(4) provides the maximum opportunity for agreement to be reached. Even after the Secretary of State has notified the GLC that it may declare against borough opposition, the borough is given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to tackle the area itself. The fact that the GLC itself proposed that this further opportunity should be available cuts down to size the charge of its being the "big brother". The GLC has itself said, in a letter to the Department, that although it considers its reserve power vital, it has no desire to act against the wishes of a London borough and hopes that it will be able to proceed with the full cooperation of boroughs. We share that hope.
I have described the powers as
a back-up, no more",
and added:
If all the London boroughs are able and willing to carry through work in this field as fully as one wants and hopes, and, I believe, for the most part they will wish to do, there will never be an occasion when the GLC will need to apply to the Secretary of State for the operation of the default powers … I hope that this situation will obtain … but I believe that at the end of the day such reserve powers to get the job done, if it is not being done, must be in the Bill.
I could continue to argue this case more deeply on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families in need. But I end by reinforcing or repeating a point that I put in Committee and on which I have touched today:
At the end of the day it is not the susceptibilities between points of power in government at whatever level. It is what is done to enable people and their children to grow up

in better housing and urban conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 23rd May 1974; c. 246–7, 243]
That is the objective of the Bill as drafted. It is for that reason that we resist the amendment.

Mr. Rossi: I have listened attentively to the whole debate. I recognise at once the depth of feeling that exists in boroughs against interference in their area with their jurisdiction and powers by other boroughs, whether they be other district boroughs or the GLC. As has been adduced by hon. Members, a matter of principle is involved in that situation. However, the Minister has made it clear, both in Committee and in the letter that he wrote to members of the Committee, that this power is to be used only by agreement. The intention is that there shall be agreement between the boroughs and the GLC. If that is the objective we would not wish to press the amendment any further.
The debate, essentially, has been a quarrel between the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council. The proposal was originally put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) in his capacity as representing the interests of the LBA in this House. He put forward its arguments competently and effectively. But this quarrel between the LBA and the GLC is essentially an internal Labour Party quarrel. It is no concern of ours.
Having listened to the Minister's assurances—

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rossi: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I am trying to be brief. If I get sidetracked we shall go on for hours.

Mr. Latham: I want to intervene on that point.

Mr. Rossi: We shall watch the situation. If it develops in the way in which the Minister suggested, so be it. But if we see abuse of this reserve power by the GL,C and untoward interference by it in the boroughs' powers, when the time comes we shall certainly review the matter by looking deeply and hard at the whole of the GLC's housing powers.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Question accordingly negatived.

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 139.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
11.57 p.m.


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Beith, A. J.
Knox, David
Stanley, John


Benyon, W.
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Steel, David


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Bulmer, Esmond
Mills, Peter
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tyler, Paul


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Neubert, Michael
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Dixon, Piers
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)



Freud, Clement
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th.Streath'm)
Mr. John Moore and


Grist, Ian
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Cyril Townsend.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sims, Roger



Hunt, John
Sinclair, Sir George





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Ronald King


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
O'Malley, Brian


Bates, Alf
Golding, John
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Hamling, William
Parry, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hatton, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Edward


Carter, Ray
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cocks, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Concannon, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Cox, Thomas
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Cronin, John
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minsterP'ton)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, G. R.
Lawson,George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Tinn, James


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Torney, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Loughlin, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Watkins, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McElhone, Frank
Watt, Hamish


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wellbeloved, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
McGuire, Michael
White, James


Doig, Peter
McNamara, Kevin
Whitlock, William


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, M. O. F.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Dunn, James A.
Marquand, David
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Edge, Geoff
Mikardo, Ian



Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Evans, John (Newton)
Milne, Edward
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Moonman, Eric

Clause 50

GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 48, line 14, leave out `Subject to section 76 below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to consider Government Amendment No. 27.

Mr. Kaufman: After that vote, of the kind which we shall be having in the next Parliament, I shall say a few words about these amendments. [Interruption.] If the Opposition are to run amok I cannot help that, nor can I help their irresponsibility or irrationality. I shall ignore ribald interruptions from a destructive Opposition.
These amendments arise from further consideration of the special provisions within Part VI relating to parsonages and charities. Clause 76(1) lists a number of provisions in Part VI of the Bill which are not to apply in relation to grant applications in respect of parsonages and charities. On reconsideration the Government feel there is no justification for exempting these categories from the provisions of Clause 50(4), which empowers the Secretary of State to give directions to local authorities to prevent them approving certain grant applications except with his consent. The amendments effect the necessary change.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53

CERTIFICATES OF FUTURE OCCUPATION

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 50, line 29, after 'date', insert (a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to consider Government Amendments Nos. 79 to 84.

Mr. Freeson: These amendments arise from an undertaking given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) during the Committee stage that the Government

would table an amendment to facilitate the payment of a grant for the improvement, conversion or repair of a dwelling which is occupied or will be kept available for occupation by a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service and otherwise than as a tenant—loosely referred to as "agricultural tied cottages".
Prior to the Housing Act 1969, when broadly similar grant conditions applied stipulating that, if the dwelling were not occupied by the applicant, it should be let, there was a specific exclusion where the occupant was
a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service and otherwise than as a tenant".
This was to enable grants to be given for what are loosely described as "agricultural tied cottages" where occupation was not on a tenancy.
Clause 53 as it stands in general prohibits a local authority from entertaining an application for any form of grant, except special grants, unless it is provided with a certificate of future occupation certifying that the dwelling will, for a specified period, either be owner-occupied or be let or be kept available for letting as a residence. In the latter case, a condition will be attached to a grant stipulating that the dwelling will be let or available for letting as a residence, and not for a holiday, to persons other than the members of the family of the person who is the owner for the time being. One effect of this is that agricultural tied cottages which are not let on tenancies will be outside the scope of the various grants available under Part VI of the Bill.
We undertook to consider whether this should be changed, failing the attempt by the hon. Member for Buckingham to reverse the situation by amendment in Committee. The amendments which have been introduced this evening seek to meet that undertaking.
I wish to make it clear that this is in no way a reflection of the Government's intention by means of other legislation on some further occasion to seek to abolish tied cottages. The objectives of the amendments are to ensure priorities where these are needed in order to help improve properties by means of grant.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 80, in page 50, line 31, at end insert
'or (b) the dwelling will be occupied or available for occupation by a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service and otherwise than as a tenant'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 63

AMOUNT OF SPECIAL GRANT

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 59, line 34, after 'be' insert
'such as may be fixed by the local authority when they approve the application for the grant but shall not exceed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this Amendment it may be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 24, 30 and 31.

Mr. Freeson: The amendments arise from a suggestion in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), which I accepted, namely, that since local authorities have discretion whether or not to approve special grants and repairs grants, it would be logical and consistent with the position relating to improvement grants to give them powers to fix the amount of special or repairs grants at less than the appropriate percentage.
The amendments have this effect by amending Clauses 63 and 65 so that if, for example, a local authority wished to approve a special grant in a housing action area at only 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. it would be open to it to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65

DETERMINATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENSE AND AMOUNT OF REPAIRS GRANT

Amendment made:

No. 24, in page 61, line 4 leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 5 and insert
'The amount of a repairs grant shall be such as may be fixed by the local authority when they approve the application for the grant but subject to subsection (5) below, shall not exceed'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 66

CONDITIONS AS TO FUTURE OCCUPATION

Amendments made:

No. 81, in page 61, line 41, after period', insert '(a)'.

No. 82, in page 61, line 44, at end insert
'or (b) the dwelling will be occupied or available for occupation by a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service and otherwise than as a tenant'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 67

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO IMPOSE GRANT CONDITIONS

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 62, line 46, leave out from 'of' to end of line 47 and insert 'that period'.
During the earlier stages of drafting Clause 67, which sets out further conditions which may be attached to grant approvals to applicants who have given a certificate of availability for letting, it was intended that the periods set out in subsection (2)(d) of the Clause, within which matters were to be referred to the rent officer or the rent tribunal, as appropriate, should run from the certified date. The certified date is the date on which the improved dwelling is certified by the local authority as fit for occupation after completion of the relevant works, as provided in Clause 68(6).
It was later decided, however, to adopt instead the relevant date for this purpose as defined in subsection (4), that is, the day on which the dwelling is first let on a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract. But in making this change, it was overlooked that the periods within which action had to be taken, as provided in Clause 67(2)(d), would no longer be entirely appropriate.
As originally conceived—that is, linking the condition to the certified date—the landlord letting on a regulated tenancy—that is, letting unfurnished—would be able to let more quickly than the landlord letting on a Part VI contract who would under the existing Rent Acts, disregarding their impending amendment by the Rent Bill now under consideration in


another place, have to furnish the dwelling before a tenant could move in. Thus the clause as drafted allows the potential furnished lessor an extra 14 days within which registration must be sought.
Quite apart from the impending elimination of the distinction between furnished and unfurnished tenancies under the Rent Bill, the fact that the clause now provides that the period within which registration must be sought shall run from the day on which the letting actually begins eliminates any need for different periods to be available for Part VI or regulated lettings. The amendment eliminates this unnecessary distinction. It requires the landlord letting under a Part VI contract to apply for a rent registration within the same period as that within which a landlord letting under a regulated tenancy must apply, that is, 14 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 83, in page 63, line 21, at end insert 'or
(c) which is occupied or available for occupation by a member of the agricultural population in pursuance of a contract of service, and otherwise than as a tenant'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 73

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REFUSING APPLICATION FOR GRANT OR FIXING IMPROVEMENT GRANT AT LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM

Amendments made:

No. 30, in page 68, line 4, after 'grant' insert:
'a special grant or a repairs grant'.

No. 31, in page 68, line 6, after '57', insert:
'section 63 or, as the case may be, section 65'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 76

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PARSONAGES, ETC.

Amendment made:

No. 27, in page 69, leave out line 27 and insert:
'76.—(1) Section 50(3)'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 69, line 33, after 'made', insert by a charity, or'.
Clause 76(1) excludes, from the effects of certain earlier clauses, applications for grants made in respect of certain ecclesiastical property and charities.
It has come to the Department's attention that, for Clause 76(1)(b) to be fully comprehensive, it should cover, in addition to applications made on behalf of a charity by its trustees, applications made by a charity itself—that is, in those cases where one would expect an application for grant by a charity to be made by a body corporate under seal and not by charity trustees on behalf of a charity. This is the effect of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 77

INTERPRETATION OF PART VI

Amendment made:

No. 84, in page 69, line 40, at end insert:
agricultural population" means—
(a) persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture, and
(b) the dependants of such persons, and for this purpose "agriculture" includes dairy-farming and poultry-farming and the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land, or orchard or osier land or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds '.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 80

ACCEPTANCE OF UNDERTAKINGS TO DO WORKS

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 73, line 8, leave out 'Section 78(1)' and insert:
'Sub-section (1) of section 78'.
This is a simple technical drafting amendment. In Clause 80(1) a reference is made in line 8 to section 78(1), whereas in line 9 the reference is to "that subsection". The amendment puts this right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84

APPEALS AGAINST IMPROVEMENT NOTICES

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 78, line 12, leave out from 'expense' to end of line 13.
This amendment removes an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill. The other references to "reasonable expense" in Part VII of the Bill—in Clauses 78(1)(b), 80(1), 82(3)(c) and, by reference, in Clause 81(2)(b)—are not subject to the qualification that regard should be had to the estimated cost of the works.
The amendment arises from a promise made by my hon. Friend in Committee to consider Amendment No. 182 moved by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) which proposed to delete
the estimated cost of the works
from Clause 84(2)(a) and substitute "in all the circumstances". The amendment was inspired by a suggestion made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In moving it, the hon. Gentleman expressed the view that
the estimated cost of the works
was unduly restrictive because there were other matters which ought to be considered.
The Government amendment now proposed will, in the event of an appeal, allow a court to take into account these other matters including the social as well as the economic value of an improved house. The "in" of "in all the circumstances", as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, is therefore superfluous.

Mr. Allason: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this arises from an amendment which I moved in Committee. It meets my point in full, and I am grateful for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92

EXCLUSION OF DWELLINGS CONTROLLED BY CROWN OR A PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Mr. Ronald Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 84, leave out lines 41 and 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 3, in page 85, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Amendment No. 4, in page 85, line 6, leave out '(a) to (f)' and insert '(a) to (c)'.

Mr. Brown: I cannot understand why, in Clause 92, we exempt from the service of improvement notices or provisional notices the Housing Corporation, a registered housing association or a housing trust. I hope that the Minister will explain why he believes these people are on the same level as a local authority. They are responsible to no one but themselves. They are self-perpetuating.
Over the years I have looked askance at some of the housing associations which have mushroomed. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have disagreed for many years on this matter. I do not share his enthusiasm for housing associations. In the period 1968–69 I drew his attention to the mushrooming of these associations, the sort of people who were being brought together and the political reasons for some of the appointments.
I should like to give the Minister an example, so that he can, perhaps, answer my point. There is a housing trust in my constituency known as Sutton Dwellings Trust. For many years I have been harassing successive Governments about this trust and its behaviour in my City Road dwellings. I have raised the matter with the local authority and in the House. I am desperately trying to get improvements to these properties. They were built in 1911. Sutton Dwellings finished paying for them in 1971, and they are all profit-earning properties. According to the last account that I had, in 1971 £4,000 profit had been made on them—and they had not been paid for completely by then. The profit from the estate is now, therefore, in excess of that figure.
These properties are not exactly desirable mansions in which hon. Members would like to live. They have baths and toilets in the kitchens, and they are called "habitable rooms". The lights have to be on in the daytime because they are so dark. They are subject to noise, being adjacent to a roundabout, which the council so kindly made, which has made the lives of the residents a misery.
Over the years the residents have had to provide all their own amenities. In this matter the figures are interesting. Whereas Sutton Dwellings could have installed baths at its own expense, the tenants had to pay 1s. 6d. a week for them. They are still paying additional rent of 1s. 6d. a week for having a bath put in. Under the 1954 Act they could have been put in as a statutory amenity. The tenants pay 1s. 6d. a week for a new toilet pan and 1s. 6d. a week for sinks. The tenants had to pay for electric wiring, fireplaces and boilers which were installed in 1950 at a cost of £80. The tenants are still paying 2s. 6d. a week for boilers for which they could have bought 50 boilers since theirs were installed. I could continue with examples of how this trust behaves.
The rents have been "fair rented" by this charity. The rent for these "two habitable room" occupancies has been set by the rent officer at £3·05. Nevertheless, the tenants are prepared to accept that because they believe that they will have to pay more if they do not. They were already paying over £2·50 when the rent officer set the rents.
This great charity, so well known for its charitable works, says in its report of last year that
the trustees decided that applications should be made for rent figures to be registered as fair rents for all their dwellings at levels consistent with the criteria laid down but erring on the low side rather than on the high side.
Is not that nice? But how does it react? It is now appealing, on every one of the 197 flats, against the rent officer's decision. It is not erring on the low side. It is going for the high side. So much for the charity in its documents.
One of the trust's dwellings was recently overrun by rats. Representatives of the local authority have visited the place a dozen and one times. But the trust was very kind. It took the family out of the place. I was most appreciative of that. Within a week, however, it was offering the flat to someone else. I telephoned the local authority and asked whether the rats had been removed. Of course they had not been removed. Another family was being put into the place while it was known that that family would be coming to see me immediately because of the rats eating away around the boiler, under the

floor boards and in the walls. This charity was happy to offer the flat to what were probably a homeless family—coming no doubt from some other hon. Member's constituency; they certainly do not come from mine.
This charity has refused for years to carry out work which ought to have been done. Therefore, why does my hon. Friend the Minister think that it should be exempted? I remind my hon. Friend, incidentally, that this was my first experience of rent assessment committees. It is time he had a look at those, too. One of them sent a mass of documentation to an old lady of 82, expecting her to read it. She was sent documents A, B and C and photostats that were illegible. The rent assessment committee then decided upon the date of the hearing. Because the charity wanted to oppose the rent officer's proposals for a high rent—it wanted an even higher figure—the hearing will take five days.
I asked the committee what my constituents were supposed to do about the hearing, and the committee advised me to tell them to see a lawyer. When I explained that some of them were infirm and could not go to the hearing, it advised them to go to the Citizens' Advice Bureau, but if they go there they are only sent back to see me. I am now faced with having to transport these people in a bus to the hearing, which is to be held in Berners Street in the West End. The committee will not hold the hearing in my constituency.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not my hon. Friend being unfair to the rent assessment committee? The covering letter sent out by the committee advises the tenant that the best thing to do is to take action at the hearing through a tenants' association. It is difficult to find an institution which goes out of its way to tell tenants that a tenants' association can handle the whole thing for them. In the kind of case mentioned by my hon. Friend—and I have similar cases in my constituency, which used, in part, to be his—the tenants' association is the answer. I have found that they are welcomed by the rent assessment committees.

Mr. Brown: I was aware of that point, but tenants' organisations are not established in five minutes. We are dealing here in the main with elderly people,


people who have been in their present homes for 30 or 40 years, perhaps ever since they were built. The result is that they are unable to do the sort of things my hon. Friend suggests. I am, nevertheless, doing my best to organise these things.
Is this what my hon. Friend the Minister expected would happen under this legislation? Did he expect that the Member of Parliament would have to be the welfare officer and to do the work of the rent assessment committee? Does he accept that if people are to make their protest they must go to Berners Street to do so? The excuse given to me for holding the hearing there is that the committee has rooms there, and because of the vast amount of documentation the hearing cannot be held in a place convenient to the tenants.
The rent assessment committees are supposed to be working for us. We are not working for them. It is a scandal and is not democratic in any sense of the word. The committee suggests seeking help from the surveyors panel. It says that there are surveyors who will do charity work if the constituents are poor enough. Why not get the Department to do that work? The Department has a whole staff to do that sort of job. Why does my hon. Friend the Minister not get them to see people to explain a person's rights and privileges? If the rent assessment committees are to behave like this, the Minister must decide whether they are of any value to us.
All this stems from a charity deciding to oppose the rent officer's rent proposal. These people have not done very well with regard to the maintenance of their property. The tenants are now being set upon. I object most strongly to such trusts being exempted from the Bill's requirements. I note that my hon. Friend is paying close attention to what I am saying.
12.30 a.m.
There is another trust in my constituency, the De Beauvoir Trust, which is composed of a number of young professional men. The usual pattern has been followed—namely, a group of young professionals suddenly moving to the area, which is now being tarted up, and paying large sums for their houses. They move into the area, and having been in it for two or three years they join the

Liberal Party and decide that they want to set up a housing trust. A trust is then set up and they let everyone know that the Liberals are doing such great things.
The trust then buys up houses over the heads of tenants who have been living in them for 40 years and more. It then proceeds, one house being empty, to apply for grants from the local authority and from the Government. The trust tarts up that one house and then starts putting pressure on the tenants. It points out to the tenants that they must move because the trust wants to improve the property in which they are living. These trusts are, in effect, winklers when they deal in that way with tenants who have occupied the property for many years. I do not suggest that they behave in any way other than gently, but it is a serious matter when a visit is made to a lady living on her own, who does not have a man of the house to whom she can turn, and when she is told "In the end we can take you to court. We have all the powers."
I want to know why these people are exempted. Who the blazes are they? They are young professional people who have moved in and who have been in the area for only a short time. They will be off again. We have had them all before. They are not new. They are coming in and behaving in the gross fashion which I have described. Maybe it would be better if the lady had the house improved in which she has been living for 40 years, but this is a democratic society. We cannot have Liberals or anyone else moving in, no matter who they are, and acting in the way I have described.
These people are prepared to buy a house over the heads of the tenants living in it, the tenants who were not even offered the property. I cannot think of anything more speculative than that. They then start putting pressure on the people living in the house, albeit in a gentle way. Pressure is applied by suggesting "Would not you like to go there? Come and see it. It is a nice little house. I visited the house where the lady is now living; it is a charming little house." The people involved do not need to move at all, yet they are being pressurised. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend puts that sort of person above the law by the proposals which are within the Bill. I have tried to understand it, but


it seems that they are not responsible to the public or to anyone else but themselves. They are self-perpetuating. I trust that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment.

Mr. Rowlands: It is with great trepidation that I rise to reply to the amendment. I know that Welshmen have been exported to various parts of London and to other parts of Britain, but they have not been exported to discuss the particular problems of London. As a Welsh Office Minister I do not feel competent to take part in such a debate.
The general point which I should like to make in dealing with the specific point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referred and on which he obviously has strong feelings concerns the wider issue of rent assessment panels and the operation of the Rent Act. We are reviewing the Rent Act and the rent assessment procedures in a general way and I am sure that the point that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account.
In general terms the amendment seeks to delete the exclusion of the four bodies that are mentioned in the provisions for exemption, which my hon. Friend suggested are above the law. The four bodies include the Housing Corporation, which is a Government-sponsored body which will be greatly strengthened by the provisions of Part I. The success of the corporation is crucial to the whole operation of the policy contained in the Bill.
There is also the New Towns Development Corporation, which like the Housing Corporation is appointed by the Secretary of State and is responsible to him. There are the registered housing associations and the charitable housing trusts. These last two are non-profit-making.

Mr. Ronald Brown: They are not actually non-profit-making. It may be that they are non-profit-making overall but they are deliberately setting out to make a profit from my people living in these disgusting properties, so that they can let their properties up in Salford at about half the price.

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to differ in general terms with my hon. Friend. I cannot take up the particular points he

raised about a group of flats or houses in his constituency. Generally these organisations are non-profit-making, by legislation.
We are not doing anything especially different here. We are not making any change and suddenly excluding these organisations in any way. The existing provisions are essentially the same as those in Section 41 (2) of the 1964 Housing Act, except in the case of the registered housing association, which is a concept introduced by the Bill. Registration and supervision of the housing groups will help ensure that they meet the requirements and responsibilities they have assumed.
Generally no difficulties over the operation of the provisions of the 1964 Act have come to the notice of the Department to suggest that the list of exempted public bodies in respect of compulsory improvement need to be amended for the purposes of Part VII of the Bill, which effectively replaces Part II of the 1964 Act. I cannot go into detail on the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope he will accept that the provisions here follow the strong precedent of the 1964 Act. We have no reason to change these provisions.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I can only say that I am rather sad after hearing that reply. I raised this matter earlier because I was dissatisfied with the 1964 Act. I was told that when new legislation was introduced that Act would be looked at afresh. The Minister has not offered any argument why I cannot get my local authority to issue a notice on this body in the same way as I can for any other landlord. I should have exactly the same right.
What my hon. Friend is saying now is that these people can go on in the same way as before. A total of 197 families in this block of flats have suffered for many years through the indolence and incompetence of these people. Although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, I am bound to say that I am terribly dissatisfied and I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity of inviting me to his Department to talk over these matters at an early date. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 92

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 86, line '11, leave out paragraph (f) and insert:
(f) the police authority for any police area".
This amendment corrects a drafting error in the Bill. The existing subsection (6)(f) has the effect of including as a local authority for the purposes of Part VII
a police committee constituted under section 2 of the Police Act 1964.
Home Office advice was that this definition did not include a combined police authority set up under Section 3 of the same Act, for example, the police authorities for Devon and Cornwall and Thames Valley. It suggested an amendment on these lines. In view of the provisions of Section 62 and Schedule 8 of the Police Act 1964 "police authority" does not require definition.

Mr. Emery: May I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am most grateful that the Devon and Cornwall police authority, which does a remarkably good job, should be covered by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 97

INTERPRETATION OF PART VII

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 89, line 28, after 'dwelling' insert
'within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968'.
In the clause an "occupying tenant" for the purposes of Part VII of the Bill is defined as being, among other things,
a statutory tenant of the dwelling".
The amendment is designed to make it clear that the expression "statutory tenant" in the clause means a statutory tenant as referred to in Section 3 of and Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1968.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 98

SECRETARY OF STATE'S CONTROL OVER CERTAIN EXPENDITURE BY HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. Stallard: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 91, line 3, leave out Clause 98.
I am still puzzled about the need for this clause. I am not normally suspicious, but I find that the clause was Clause 121 in the original Tory Bill, and had that Bill gone any further I intended to move to delete that clause. The original clause now appears verbatim as Clause 98, and I have therefore moved the amendment to delete it.
I discovered that the previous Government had included the clause giving the Secretary of State powers of veto over local authority spending in providing dwellings by the conversion of houses or other buildings because they were concerned and a little alarmed about the activities of some inner London boroughs, including my own, in operating that provision. The then Government were worried, to say the least, about municipalisation, and in order to stop or curb the expansion of this process they sought to control the spending of local authorities by still more intervention.
I repeat that I am still a little worried about this clause appearing in the Bill in the same form as it did in the previous measure. I thought that the Labour Party was pledged to encourage municipalisation. That being so, rather than impede local authorities in that process we should provide finance and encourage them to municipalise.
What kind of criteria will be used by my right hon. Friend in deciding whether to intervene? Will he allot a certain amount of money per local authority, or will he decide on a number of dwellings per local authority? On what criteria will he decide whether to interfere? I hope I am wrong in thinking that the present Government would like to stop the process of municipalisation, which is what the previous Government hoped to do.
Last year my borough purchased 1,227 units of accommodation, and in the first four months of this year it has


bought 1,431 units. We should encourage that process. I accept that the previous Government wanted to stop this process and therefore they wanted this clause, but do we need it?

12. 45 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) in the amendment. I, too, find it difficult to understand what lies behind the clause. This is clear intervention by the Secretary of State. Will it be intervention on quality of conversion? If it is the case that quality of conversion is to be maintained, I can understand that and will support it.
I think of the days when the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Secretary of State. If any projects had been submitted to him I imagine that he would not have been upholding the quality of conversions. I am sure that my hon. Friend as Minister will use all his skill to ensure that conversions are generally of the quality we would expect. However, he will not be there for ever. He may well be elevated to higher office. I am anxious to hear from him what protection there will be for local authorities which regard conversion of properties as an important part of their activities.
This type of work is being increasingly undertaken. The next development will be application after application awaiting the Secretary of State's approval. In the case of conversions there will be complaints from local people. There will be complaints of harassment and difficulties about squatters. The whole matter becomes impossible once this further control is fed in. The control cannot be fed into the Department until the houses are purchased. When the houses are purchased, many of them will be empty. By the time approval is obtained from the Secretary of State, the house will be derelict. Therefore, the original propoals which have been approved by hon. Friend will be out of date in any event.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain to us why, in his strategy of trying to proceed with conversions as quickly as possible, he believes that feeding in this element of control will help.

Mr. Freeson: The clause in no way -limits expenditure on acquisition of pro-

perties. Municipalisation of social ownership can in no way be frustrated by the clause. The clause could not even be used in that way by a Conservative Government, should one ever succeed us.
The clause is not intended to operate to establish control over detailed expenditure on particular acquisitions by way of improvement. It will empower the Secretary of State to control the flow of resources to different parts of the country and into different activities in broad brush annual budget terms, but the manner in which this can be done will have to be discussed with the local authority associations.
This is not a clause under which the Secretary of State will interfere in the detailed local assessment of priorities and programming, let alone in the detailed application of improvement policy to groups of houses purchases. The fact that the clause empowers the Secretary of State to influence the flow of resources in broad brush annual budget terms will be important as we move further into the field of local authority sponsored improvement to ensure that resources are going primarily into priority stress areas, as compared with the flow of resources which has sometimes gone into areas which, however desirable it may be to improve them, could not be described as requiring first priority treatment in the private sector.
It is also possible that we may wish to influence the flow of resources away from large-scale improvement of local authority estates if there is greater priority for improving seriously substandard properties. This has not been worked out in detail, but it is an area of influence that we must have to ensure that resources go to improve properties which have escaped improvement although the improvements policy was primarily designed for that purpose.
The most seriously substandard private properties over the years have received the smallest proportion of resources from the total improvements programme. A large proportion of the expenditure has gone on local authority estates of the 1920s and 1930s and on owner-occupied properties in relatively good condition. Only a very small proportion of the expenditure has gone on properties in the twilight areas which are in greatest need


of improvement, the very properties which one expects local authorities to give priority to when working out programmes of acquisition, so that they can be improved and not allowed to decline into slums. The broad policy intention is to get the flow of resources into areas of highest priority rather than to interfere in detailed programmes or the detailed management of particular schemes.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation of how he sees the clause operating, but I am not 100 per cent. satisfied. I suspect that the intention of the original clause in the previous Bill introduced by the Conservative Government was to attempt to control the conversion and improvement of older properties by local authorities and so to counter the move towards municipalisation. I accept the sincerity of my hon. Friend in his interpretation of the clause. I am still a little worried that the operation of the clause might fall into someone else's hands, but that is not likely in the foreseeable future.
I accept my hon. Friend's explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 102

REMOVAL OF TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETNG CERTAIN WORKS ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF GRANT OR CONTRIBUTIONS

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 77. in page 93, line 13, leave out 'approved by the local authority on or before 30th September'
and insert:
'received by the local authority on or before 23rd June'.
I should declare an interest, in that members of my family own a house which is subject to a grant which could be affected by the amendment. That is why I am aware of the circumstances, which I should like briefly to put to the Minister. He will be aware that several local authorities have had difficulty in tackling all the applications for grants which were made last year and in some cases there have been considerable delays in giving approvals. Applications

received well before 30th September were not dealt with in time, and may not have been dealt with for a number of weeks or even months after that. The result, of course, was that work could not begin, and with the shortages of materials and other difficulties of the building industry early in 1974 it has been a struggle for work to be completed to a satisfactory standard by 23rd June.
In the case of which I have personal knowledge, the builder has completed the work, but he might not have done so, and I am sure that in many other cases the work has not been completed in time for the reasons I have given. If the hon. Gentleman would care to make inquiries, I think he would find that this is a matter which deserves attention and that the local authorities would like an amendment of this sort to be made.
Moreover, I think that Clause 102(3) sanctions the idea that the date on which the application is received should be made the criterion rather than the date on which it is approved, because, in the case of housing associations, as I read the clause, it is the date on which the application was received by the Secretary of State that is built in. The date is left as 30th September. Thus, in suggesting that the date should be put back to 23rd June I am weakening the effects of my own amendment, and if the Minister were prepared to leave in the date of 30th September and catch thereby a certain further number of cases, I would make no complaint about that. I hope he will look at the matter. The cost would be small but the case is just. Perhaps he could produce an amendment in another place.

Mr. Tyler: I referred to this matter on Second Reading. As I said then, it is unfair that the applicant should be caught by the inefficiency of the receiving authority. It is a simple principle that he should not suffer if, by mischance or by maladministration, a local authority is slow in dealing with the application. In some cases they have been slow, whether by default or accident one cannot be too sure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and I in our different areas are able to report such experiences.
It seems wrong in such circumstances that the applicant should find himself


caught out by the machinery of local government. The Minister may say that a great deal of money is involved. That may be so, but he should seriously consider whether a later date would not be fairer than that already fixed.

Mr. Freeson: We are talking about a situation arising from the Housing Act 1971. That Act was introduced not purely for housing purposes but for employment purposes in the development and intermediate areas. The case was made out clearly at the time by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends in opposition, and it was accepted in that the Act did not relate the 75 per cent. grant to areas of housing stress but to development and intermediate areas for economic and employment reasons. It was clear that the grant applied to such areas.
Secondly, the deadline was laid down clearly by the Conservative Government. The Act was clearly intended to be a short, sharp measure. It was originally intended to run for a year, but when there was much pressure for the period to be extended to two years the Government agreed, making it clear that there could not be any further extension. There could or should have been no misunderstanding about the position under that Act—namely, that it was due to run out on 23rd June this year.
1.0 a.m.
However, we received representations about this matter when we came into office. I am aware of the position referred to by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I could not have been unaware of it in view of the representations that we have received.
Having been under pressure for some months to soften the impact of the terminal date for these preferential grants, mainly because of delays occasioned by the three-day week, I gave long and careful consideration to all the factors. The Government then announced, on 30th April, their intention to amend the law, as they did, by altering the Bill.
Various requests have been made for concessions of different kinds, mostly involving a later date than 30th September 1973, which is the amendment we have put into the Bill, as the date by which applications must have been approved to

be in receipt of the 75 per cent. grant, even if the work was not completed until after the 23rd June deadline. Varying permutations have been suggested, such as that referred to by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler).
The Government decided on applications approved on or before 30th September 1973 on the basis that, given an average of about nine months for completion of a scheme, based upon information about the operation of improvement grants, it was considered fair to help those who could be said to have obtained their approvals in adequate time and who in that sense had been particularly hard hit by recent difficulties and delays in the building industry due to the three-day week.
The Government accept that many good cases can be made. That is bound to be so wherever we draw the deadline. The situation would be totally unacceptable without a deadline. There are bound to be rough cases on one side or the other. However, to extend it further along the lines proposed would involve the expenditure of about £70 million. It is estimated that about £8 million per month would be involved. That cannot be a hard figure. We cannot be absolutely sure about that without operating in the sphere of improvement grants. That is a reasonable estimate based on experience.
We have given an extension to those affected by the three-day week. We cannot accept any further extension. We must move as rapidly as possible to the housing area concept where we see the 75 per cent. grant reintroduced on a proper housing basis as distinct from the employment basis in the 1971 Act.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful for the attention that the Minister has paid to my point. I am amazed at the figure of £70 million. It must arise from some misunderstanding. We are talking about the difference between a 50 per cent. and a 75 per cent. grant. The putting back of the date to 23rd June also puts back the stage of the applications being put in, not the approval. The Minister does not seem to have appreciated that point.
If 23rd June is not early enough, then the principle supported by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) should still be applied. The date of application


would be the criterion, not the date of approval, because not all local authorities have acted with equal speed.
If the Minister will apply his fair mind to this point he will recognise that there is a good case here. If £70 million is more than he is willing to give, may I ask him nevertheless to accept the date of application. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister's figure is right and there is £70 million worth of work for the 25 per cent. over the 50 per cent. which was received in applications in June 1973, but was not approved by the end of September 1973, that is an incredible amount of work to be held up in the backlog of local government offices. I think that the Minister must have quoted the wrong figure.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. This is a matter that needs to be looked at again, perhaps not at 1.5 a.m. but in another place. The Minister can only expect uproar at his ruling if £70 million is at stake. I cannot believe it. I invite him to look at this again.
In view of the lateness of the hour and the difficulty of ascertaining precisely what the facts are, it would be taking the proper course if I were to ask the House for leave to withdraw my amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 106

SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 97, line 3, leave out from 'association' to end of line 4 and insert
'falling within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 91 above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 57, in Schedule 11, page 133, line 17, at end insert—
'26A.—(l) In section 91(1) of the 1972 Act (exceptions from duty to give information about service charges) at the end of paragraph (d) there shall be added the words "which either is registered under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 or falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 18(1) of that Act.

(2) This paragraph shall come into operation on the operative date'.

Mr. Kaufman: The purpose of these amendments is to restrict the exception given to housing associations from having to justify their service charges to those registered under Clause 14 of the Bill, and with a few other minor exceptions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112

AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, SAVINGS AND REPEALS

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No 32, in page 102, line 15, at end insert:
'(1A) In Schedule 11 to this Act, the amendments of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 shall have effect in the case of persons displaced on or after the date of the passing of this Act'.
The Land Compensation Act 1973 provides broadly that residential occupiers displaced by compulsory purchase or other specified action by a public body should receive home loss and disturbance payments and be rehoused where suitable alternative accommodation on reasonable terms is not otherwise available. Paragraph 29, 30 and 31 of Schedule 11 amend Sections 29, 37 and 39 of the Act concerning persons displaced as a result of the improvement of their homes within the scope of these provisions.
Section 43 of the 1973 Act empowers an acquiring authority to pay the reasonable expenses of purchasing a house other than the purchase price if a displaced tenant wishes to acquire a dwelling in substitution for that from which he is displaced. Paragraph 32 of Schedule 11 extends this to cover displacement by a public body in cases other than compulsory purchase, including improvement works.
The opportunity was also taken to make minor and consequential amendments to Sections 29, 37, 39 and 42 of the 1973 Act.
This amendment to Clause 112 provides that the amendments to the 1973 Act effected by paragraphs 29 to 32 of Schedule 11, and equivalent amendments in paragraphs 33 to 36 of Schedule 11 to the equivalent Scottish provisions, shall


have effect where residents are displaced on or after the date on which this Bill receives the Royal Assent.
The 1973 Act provided that the home loss payment and disturbance payment provisions should apply to displacements on or after 17th October 1972, the date the proposals were announced in a White Paper. Without the specific provision in this amendment the extension to these provisions might erroneously be interpreted as applying retrospectively from 17th October 1972.
The date of the passing of the Act has been selected, rather than the subsequent date on which it comes into operation, to benefit the greatest number of people without making the Act retrospective.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 102, line 36, after "99", insert "101".
This amendment is consequential to the addition in Committee of new Clause 6 which now appears as Clause 101.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

DECLARATION OF HOUSING ACTION AREAS BY GREATER LONDON COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 115, leave out line 15.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Schedule 5

GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 120. line 22, leave out "6" and insert "12".

No. 35, in line 26, leave out "4" and insert "8".

No. 36, in line 32, leave out "4" and insert "8".—[Mr. Freeson.]

Schedule 6

STANDARD AMENITIES

Miss Janet Fookes: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 121, line 16, at end insert:
The provision of an adequately impermeable and hygienic surface for the walls and floors of a water closet or bathroom or shower … £100.".
The purpose of the amendement is to add a further standard amenity for which financial assistance is available. The phrase
adequately impermeable and hygienic surface
is a somewhat pompous and long-winded way of saying "tiling". Most people would agree that in modern bathrooms a certain amount of tiling is desirable, and that it brings them up to the kind of standard we now expect. As far as I can gather from the schedule, there is no arrangement for its provision. It would be helpful if the Minister would take the matter on board, although I am not sure that he will look upon it in a kindly light.
However, I put the amendment forward in hopeful anticipation.

Mr. Rowlands: I should like to look kindly upon the hon. Lady's recommendations, but we do not do think that it is appropriate to add tiles as a basic standard amenity. To a list of five or six items such as toilet, fixed shower or bath, the hon. Lady seeks to add in the same category, and with the same degree of necessity, proper tiling for the walls and floors. We feel that we should not add it as a basic standard amenity for the straightforward grant, but it is possible for such additional provision of tiling to be included under the discretionary grant. The local authority has a certain amount of discretion to allow certain extra costs of that kind in certain limited circumstances.
Although we have had representations from, I believe, the British Ceramic Tile Council, we do not feel that the amendment can be justified. We do not think that tiling of the walls and floors of the bathroom is of the same importance as the basic standard amenities in the schedule, which include toilets and baths.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 8

PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 60 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1957

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 63 in page 123, line 27, leave out 'not'.
This is simply a drafting amendment. Unfortunately, paragraph (1B)(a) is drafted erroneously. It contains a double negative which produced a nonsensical result. Hon. Members may think that other parts of the Bill contain nonsensical results, but we should like to put this one right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 123, line 33, at end insert:
'(c) as mentioned in both paragraphs (b) and (e) of subsection (1A) above shall also contain a statement of the provisions of subsection (1D) below'.
Where notification is given by a local authority that a property has not been well maintained, that notification should contain notice to the persons to whom it is addressed of the fact that they have a right to make written representations to the Secretary of State. Paragraph (1B) imposes upon the local authority an obligation to give reasons why it has declared the property to be not well maintained. It does not require the authority to tell the person aggrieved the rights given in a subsequent part of the schedule, new subsection (1D), to make representations. The amendment would provide that a note be included in the notification to that effect.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Kaufman: A provision on the lines the hon. Member seeks is normal and we would seek to include it in the form of notice to be prescribed under subsection (1A). In those circumstances, I would advise the hon. Gentleman that the amendment need not be proceeded with.

Mr. Rossi: On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 9

OPTION MORTGAGES: AMENDMENTS OF PART II OF HOUSING SUBSIDIES ACT 1967

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 125, line 18, at end insert
'IA. In subsection (1) of section 27 (qualifying lenders) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
(f) the housing Corporation"; and the words from "and for the purposes"to the end of the subsection shall be omitted'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Kaufman: The amendment does two things. First, it transfers the Housing Corporation, from being a qualifying lender for the purposes of the option mortgage subsidy for housing associations only, into the general categories of qualifying lender. Second, it deletes the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Wales and Scotland from the category of qualifying lender in respect of loans to housing associations.
If hon. Members wish, I will of course amplify this explanation, but lacking any probing questions I will leave it at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 127, line 4, at end insert—
'2A. In section 189(1) of that Act, in the definition of "housing association" after the words "those of" there shall be inserted the word "providing" and after the word "houses" there shall be inserted the words "or hostels as defined in section 111(1) of the Rousing Act 1974".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 59.

Mr. Kaufman: The amendments make two changes to the definition of housing association in the Housing Act 1957 and its Scottish equivalent, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966—first, to include among the purposes or objects or powers of associations the provision, as distinct


from the construction or improvement and so on, of houses and hostels; second, to include hostels as well as houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 129, line 9, at end insert—
'8A. In section 208(1) of that Act, in the definition of "housing association" after the words "those of" there shall be inserted the word "providing" and after the words" housing accommodation "there shall be inserted the words" including hostels, as defined in section 21(4) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968".'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 131, line 18, leave out 'Part of this'.
The amendment corrects an error. The schedule now numbered 11 is not and never has been divided into parts. The reference to "this part" of the schedule in paragraph 17 is therefore erroneous.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 133, line 17, at end insert:
'26A.—(1) In section 91(1) of the 1972 Act (exceptions from duty to give information about service charges) at the end of paragraph (d) there shall be added the words" which either is registered under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 or falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 18(1) of that Act.
(2) This paragraph shall come into operation on the operative date '.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

The following amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

No. 66, in page 133, line 47, at end insert:
(e) where the land is owned by a private landlord, the carrying out voluntarily by the landlord of any improvement to the dwelling or of redevelopment on the land; and'.

No. 67, in page 134, line 13, at end insert:
(v) where paragraph (e) above applies, the landlord carrying out the improvement or redevelopment '.

No. 68, in page 135, line 4, at end insert:
(e) where the land is owned by a private landlord, the carrying out voluntarily by that landlord of any improvement to a house or building on the land or of redevelopment on that land; and'.

Mr. Douglas-Mann:: It will not, I suppose, be welcome for me to move a significant amendment at 1.15 a.m. It is

a reflection upon the absurd way in which we arrange our legislation that matters of some importance come up at a time when we cannot give them adequate attention.
The amendments are designed to amend the Land Compensation Act to enable a tenant displaced as a consequence of the carrying out by his landlord of voluntary improvement to receive payment under that Act. I moved identical amendments in Standing Committee, when the Minister expressed his sympathy for them but said that he would like to think about them again. He has been kind enough to write to me to say that, having looked into the matter, he cannot accept amendments along these lines because the Land Compensation Act as it stands provides for compensation where a local authority or statutory body exercises compulsory powers to compel the removal of the tenant from accommodation.
I submit that the powers under the Housing Act 1969 and the Housing Finance Act 1972, particularly Section 33, combined with the provisions of the Housing Finance Act which limit rent allowances involve—I speak on the basis of experience—specific cases of tenants, because the landlord is proposing to carry out improvements, finding it ultimately essential to move from those premises. Where the machinery of state is being used to compel displacement in this way, the tenant should be entitled to compensation under the Land Compensation Act, just as he would if the local authority were exercising compulsory powers.
I do not wish to repeat the argument we had in Committee, and which the Minister has been good enough to pursue in correspondence. In those circumstances, although I am by no means happy about the matter, which I hope will be pursued in other legislation in other places, I do not propose to move any of the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): In talking about it, the hon. Gentleman has been out of order if he does not intend to move the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 134, line 17, after 'consequence', insert
'of the acceptance of an undertaking'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to consider Government Amendments Nos. 38 to 45.

Mr. Kaufman: These amendments extend the scope of the word "undertaking" in Section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and thereby bring tenants who were displaced in consequence of an undertaking under Clause 80 under the scope of the home loss payment, disturbance payment and rehousing obligation provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 38, in page 134, line 21, at end insert 'undertaking or'.

No. 39, in line 25, after 'order', insert
'for the words "or section 15(4)(i) of the said Act of 1966" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(4)(i) of the said Act of 1966 or section 80 of the Housing Act 1974"'.

No. 40, in page 135, line 18, after 'consequence', insert
'of the acceptance of an undertaking'.

No. 41, in line 22, at end insert 'undertaking or'.

No. 42, in line 46, after 'consequence', insert
'of the acceptance of an undertaking'.

No. 43, in line 3, leave out from second 'the' to the end of line 4 and insert
'works specified in the undertaking, the carrying out of the improvement or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the works specified in the notice'.

No. 44, in line 9, leave out ' paragraph (d) of subsection (1) above applies' and insert
'subsection (1) above applies in consequence of the acceptance of an undertaking under section 80 of the Housing Act 1974 or the service of an improvement notice within the meaning of Part VII of that Act'.

No. 45, in line 12, leave out 'the Housing Act 1974' and insert 'that Act'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Schedule 13

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made:

No. 21, in page 142, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 27, in subsection (1) the words from "and for the purposes" to the end of the subsection'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CALF SUBSIDIES

1.22 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
When the main Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme was introduced in the House on 22nd March I said that if it were desired at a later date to change the level of the subsidy rates, steps could readily be taken to produce a simple scheme to do this. As the House will recall, following the March meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced that the Government had informed the Commission of their intention, subject to parliamentary approval, to increase the calf subsidy rates in Great Britain by £10 per calf. The purpose of this increase was to safeguard the position of beef producers in Great Britain following the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers in Brussels last March. That agreement allowed us to exercise the option of not taking beef into intervention and allow the consumer to benefit from increased supplies rather than take beef off the market at prices which housewives cannot afford.
The object of the draft scheme for which I now seek approval is to give effect to the £10 increase proposed last March in the calf subsidy rates for calves born in Great Britain.
I turn now to Northern Ireland, about which there is some interest and where the position as regards calf subsidy is a little different. When informing the House of the proposal to increase the subsidy rates for calves born in Great Britain, my right hon. Friend the Minister also announced that special arrangements, in the form of a beef marketing subsidy broadly equivalent to the £10 increase in calf subsidy, were to be made for Northern Ireland. We know the


reason for it. The aim was to prevent any distortion in trade with the Republic arising from the differences in guide prices prevailing as a result of the agreement, and the problems that this would have created on each side of the border.
Therefore, the draft scheme provides for the rate of subsidy to remain unchanged for calves born in Northern Ireland. This was the scheme which we brought in to deal with the situation as it then prevailed. However, since the draft order was laid, things have happened. The Minister has announced that, following the agreement last week, the guide prices in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are to be the same as from 1st July. As a result, an increase of £10 in the calf subsidy rates for calves born in Northern Ireland will be necessary, because we no longer need the special arrangement. It will be replaced by the 10 addition to the subsidy in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. A further draft variation scheme to do this will be laid as soon as possible. This will ensure that there is no gap in the return there. It will apply as from 1st July, and it will be brought in, I hope, in about a week.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the Northern Ireland position. It is clear that the scheme does not relate to Northern Ireland, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 1(1), which says that the scheme
shall apply to the United Kingdom".
Surely that should read "Great Britain". Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, albeit that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) does not want it to be. That is the way it is.

Mr. Buchan: The explanation is to be found in the basic scheme, of which this is a variation. The basic scheme applies to the United Kingdom. It is the variation which we make in this scheme which in practice will refer financially only to Scotland, England and Wales. The next variation will apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. The preamble to this variation scheme refers to

a joint scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom".
The hon. Gentleman will find the same words in the parent scheme. However, they are not relevant to this scheme, because Northern Ireland is excluded. I suggest that there has been a misprint in the drafting.

Mr. Buchan: I have taken legal advice on this matter and my advice is that which I have given to the House. It comes from the same source as that which formulated the scheme. The main scheme applies to the United Kingdom, and the result of this variation will be the application of a different rate in Northern Ireland from that in the remainder of the United Kingdom. That advice is now challenged, and it will have to be decided by hon. Members at the end of this debate.
The advice that I must give the House is that the reference to the United Kingdom refers to the parent scheme. The variation refers to England, Scotland and Wales. I imagine that hon. Members will be surprised to discover that the draft scheme varying the position in Northern Ireland will also make the same reference, in which case it will no doubt be said that Northern Ireland is not the United Kingdom. But, I repeat, this is a variation and not the parent scheme.
To return to our "muttons"—if that is an appropriate word when dealing with beef—and to the reason for doing it in this way, we have in the meantime to have the present draft scheme in operation by 1st July because we want those calves born in Great Britain, the producers of which are able to benefit from the higher rate, to become eligible at eight months of age. The draft scheme will provide for the rates on live calves—Stage A—born on or after 30th October 1973 to be increased until further notice to £18·50 for males and £2 less, £16·50, for heifers. It also provides for increased rates for Stage B to be the same as for Stage A and to be paid on carcases of animals born in Great Britain, certified on or after 16th December 1974 until further notice.
The cost of this is quite considerable. The cost of the increase in the subsidy rates in Great Britain is estimated to be about £30 million in a full year. In Northern Ireland, incidentally, the cost is expected to be about £5 million.
I have referred to the basic reasons for the draft and the reasons for the exclusion of Northern Ireland from it. I know that there is usually general approval for an order of this kind. I can only give the advice that I have received on this matter. From my previous experience, it seems sound advice, despite the point that has been made about the wording of the order. I hope that it proves acceptable to the House.

1.31 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am afraid that the Opposition give only a lukewarm welcome to this motion, as we have serious reservations as to the effect it will have in helping the industry at this critical moment.
The industry is in serious trouble. That is not crying, "wolf", and it is no exaggeration. All that we can say is that this extra subsidy may help to soften the blow—no more—but it is not the answer that is needed at this critical time in the production of beef.
I want to ask several pertinent questions of the Minister of State. The House will want to know why the Minister has brought forward this increase. Certainly he has not done it to give away money. I suggest that what he is trying to do is to help the beef farmer at this moment.
The Minister feels that something must be done because of the present position of the industry. If that is so, let us look at the present position of the beef industry.
The best thing that I can do as an illustration is to quote a headline from the Western Morning News, which covers a large part of the West Country, where so many store cattle are produced. That headline says:
Fat Cattle Prices Take Frightening Lurch.
A very serious slump has occurred. This is a disaster to many producers of beef. I must declare an interest, in that I farm. I am concerned mostly with milk and sheep production and not with beef, but I am told that at present there is at least a £40 loss on each fat beef animal produced. That is nothing less than a disaster.
Beef producers are facing a desperate situation as a result of unprecedented rises in production costs and a very weak market at present, aggravated by imports assisted by foreign export refunds. That

is the situation. Whatever the long-term value of this £10 rise in the calf subsidy, it will be of no help to producers now.
I should like, therefore, to quote from the Press notice that was handed out when the Minister announced this increase in the calf subsidy. The notice said that the aim of the increase was
subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary order, to safeguard the position of beef producers in Great Britain.
That is why the Minister has brought the order before the House to increase the subsidy by £10. Is that the right way to safeguard the beef producers, because that is the hon. Gentleman's aim? I do not believe so. It is not the producer of store cattle or calves who needs help now; it is the fattener. The Government were on the right lines in their approach in Northern Ireland, where they gave the fattener a slaughter premium. It is strange for the Government to have changed their position in Northern Ireland, but no doubt we shall be able to debate that matter when the further scheme comes before us.
The action taken tonight does not safeguard beef producers. It is no good encouraging future production, as the increased subsidy does, if the fattener cannot get a fair return. If the fattener cannot see a profit in the operation he will not pay the very high price for store cattle. Even though the rearer of the calves will get an extra £10 he will get less for his store cattle, because the man who buys them cannot get a fair return. The Government must introduce an end subsidy before it is too late. I hope we may be told whether that is what the Minister of Agriculture has in mind. The phrase in the Press notice
to safeguard the position of beef producers'
is not being put into effect at the moment. I do not believe that the increased subsidy will restore confidence in the beef industry. As one who has travelled the country preaching the gospel of expansion in agriculture, particularly in beef, I bitterly regret having said then that there was a good future in beef production. Confidence has gone completely.
If the House does not accept my word for it, the Ministry's figures for calf slaughterings tell the story. On 18th May 1974 the figure was 5,100; a year previously the figure was 1,800. On 8th


June this year 5,000 calves were slaughtered in one week. In the previous year the figure was 1,500. It will be interesting to see whether the trend continues now that the scheme has been introduced and now that confidence has gone.
The industry should have been encouraged by the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 14th June, but that will do nothing to solve the immediate problems facing the beef producer and to maintain the confidence that is so desperately needed. The tragedy is that store cattle are going to the slaughterhouse because their owners are far more scared of hanging on to them than they are of selling them at a loss. What a position to be in! In spite of calf subsidies, goodness knows what a farmer must feel when he disposes of an animal which cost far more to rear than he can ever hope to recoup. I regret saying these things but I believe that confidence is melting away.
My fourth question is whether the extra £10 on the calf subsidy will safeguard the future supplies of beef for the consumer. The answer must be "No" with the sort of slaughtering that is taking place. Heaven knows what the position will be for consumers in the months and years to come. Meat that is now disposed of at below cost means very dear meat later, and £10 extra on a calf will not help the consumer in the long run. I make the strong plea to consumers to be prepared to pay a fair price for beef so as to cover the costs of production and to give a fair return. If they do not pay a fair price now they will pay through the nose for meat later. In my view the calf subsidy does nothing to safeguard future supplies of beef for the consumer.
My fifth question is whether this scheme is a substitute for a deficiency payments system, an intervention system or a slaughter premium. The answer to that is also "No". I find it difficult to understand why the Minister does not appear to understand the situation. There are repeated probings and Questions in the House. We have asked the Minister of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for some form of underpinning. Each time the Minister

of State has told us that he is doing something for beef by giving this extra calf subsidy, but the calf subsidy does not give the support that is needed. Of all the commodities that are produced by British farmers, beef is the one that needs underpinning. A calf subsidy, in my view, certainly helps the rearer but it does not help the fattener.
Finally, I ask whether the Government have done enough in this dire situation. My own opinion is that they have not. I shall quote what the Minister said on an earlier occasion. I have a cutting from the Farmers Weekly of 15th February—before the last General Election. It contains many interesting views of the Minister at that time. He said:
We would hold an annual price review … but combined with strategic reviews looking five years ahead. If crises occurred, we would introduce interim reviews to deal with them … Labour would not allow the livestock centres to suffer as they have done over past months. Instead, last autumn it would have introduced production grants".
The hon. Gentleman then referred to increased subsidies and other matters. He went on to say that if possible they would hold another price review, guaranteeing producers no loss of income. Those are very good words—no one could grumble about them—but this £10 on the calf subsidy does not guarantee to producers the loss of income—up to £30 to £40 on a bullock—which they are experiencing.
I hope that the Minister will try to answer some of these questions. We do not fully welcome the scheme. It will help soften the blow, but it does nothing to tackle the real problem facing British beef producers.

1.45 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not want to dwell on the kernel of this scheme dealing with beef calves. Some of my colleagues will be doing that if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are far more capable of doing so. I want to raise a point that I raised with the Minister at the outset of the debate. I feel that the scheme is not in order. The Minister cannot argue that this refers to the Act under which the scheme is made. If he reads the preamble carefully he will find the words
hereby make the following scheme.
That must refer to this scheme. In paragraph 1 it says:
This scheme"—


that must refer to the scheme that is defined as "the following scheme" in the preamble—
shall apply to the United Kingdom".
The Minister should tell the House why, for some reason or other, those who drafted the scheme did not include Northern Ireland. I do not see why one scheme could not cover the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not understand why we must have another draft scheme to cover the United Kingdom. The Minister is aware that the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of the overall agricultural policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. He made a promise on 19th June when he said:
In consequence, the special subsidy in Northern Ireland will end on the same date, and subject to parliamentary approval, Northern Ireland producers will become eligible for the full rate of calf subsidy payable in Great Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 480.]

Mr. Buchan: That is precisely what I thought I had promised. We are sticking to that. It will happen. The fact that there is a second scheme coming in may be an argument why it could have been done in a different way. There is no question but that the guarantee and the promise will be carried out.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept the Minister's assurance. I am saying that I do not believe that the scheme is worded properly. It does not apply to the United Kingdom; it applies only to calves born in England, Wales or Scotland. It is no use our arguing otherwise. There is definitely something wrong with this. The Minister needs to take it back and look carefully at it.
It is of importance to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland, because we are firm—irrespective of what is said about Ulster nationalism—that we are part of the United Kingdom. That is the only contribution I want to make to the debate.

1.50 a.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the drafting of the statutory instrument is faulty. I accept that since the scheme was laid before the House the circumstances have changed, but the fact remains that the drafting is at fault.
The Minister has taken legal advice on the matter, and I shall not argue with him across the Floor of the House, but why has he not laid before the House a scheme relating to Northern Ireland? The hon. Gentleman spoke about laying it before the House by 1st July, but that is only four parliamentary days from now. The hon. Gentleman simply does not have time to introduce the scheme by the appropriate date, and the hon. Gentleman and his Department are at fault on this issue.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) is interested in this scheme from the point of view of Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales is not mentioned in connection with the payment of subsidy under the new paragraph 4, and he should be. The Minister is proposing to substitute a new paragraph 10 for paragraph 10 of the original statutory instrument, and as the Secretary of State for Wales is mentioned in paragraph 10 of that document he should be mentioned here in relation to the new paragraph 4.
The Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland are mentioned in page 2, at lines 4 and 5, but there is no reference to the Secretary of State for Wales. Is not the Minister acting jointly with others? That is not written into the scheme. That is one fault, and the other, unless I am mistaken, is that farmers in Wales will be out of order in receiving payments under sub-paragraph (a) because they will not get them from the Secretary of State for Wales.
Our anxieties about this scheme were well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). This provision is inadequate, and I am sorry that we are pre-empting our debate tomorrow by debating this topic tonight. It would have been better if the Government had decided to debate this scheme after tomorrow's debate.
I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food answers the debate tomorrow he will deal with the motion that has been put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the livestock sector. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties tonight. He cannot pre-empt what his Minister may say tomorrow, but let the Minister of State be in no doubt that we regard this as


an inadequate substitute for what ought to be done. This is inadequate recompense for the mistakes that the Minister made when he removed the existing floor to the beef market as soon as the Government came to power.
My hon. Friend talked about despair throughout the country over the present situation, and Derbyshire is no exception. I have received countless letters from worried constituents. My hon. Friend mentioned a loss of £40 per beast, yet the Minister is giving £10, or £1 per cwt. to livestock farmers who have been suffering for the last few months.
What is worse is that the calf market has collapsed. The reason for that is twofold—first, lack of action by the Minister, or perhaps I should say that the action he has taken has removed whatever hope the fattener had of getting a decent return.
Secondly, beef fatteners are not prepared to go into the market and buy store cattle or calves for fattening and putting on to the market in 1975. On Monday, Bakewell calf market—one of the biggest calf markets in the Midlands—had disastrous calf sales compared with a year ago. This is not surprising. Most calves are going for slaughter. The Minister of State is living in a dream world if he thinks that the increase of £10 per calf will have any effect in stopping the present slaughtering. I am sure that he is just as worried about the situation as we are.
The Minister of State will know that this measure alone will not be sufficient. Perhaps what his right hon. Friend will say tomorrow will restore some confidence to the fatteners. If not, I prophesy that at the end of 1975 beef will be as rare on the market as we have known it this century. There will be a glut of beef coming off the grass at the end of the summer and the beginning of the autumn, but, unless action is taken quickly, there will be no stocking up by fatteners for the coming year. The calf market will not recover unless confidence is given to fatteners.
I ask the Minister of State to accept that what he is doing in the scheme is only the smallest palliative in a very dangerous situation. This situation must not be overplayed—it is easy to talk oneself into much greater trouble—but never,

in all the years that I have been in agricultural politics, have I known such despair as there is at present in this sector of the livestock industry. It is not confined to the beef farmer, the fattener or the calf rearer; it is spreading to the dairy sector.
Tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture must tell us how he views the monetary compensatory amounts. This is part of the weakening process of the market which is affecting the beef trade.
One accepts the scheme with great reluctance, knowing full well that it is not sufficient and that it will not restore confidence to any sector of the beef market. I hope that tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture will say something of substance which will help to put right some of the damage he has done during the past three months, during which he has been serving his second tenure of office as Minister. The past three months have been disastrous for agriculture. I say that with regret, for I think that the Minister is doing his best. However, he has got himself into an impossible position, and this scheme, badly drafted as it is, is no solution.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Having had an interest in the production and marketing of livestock for many years, I declare my interest.
My colleagues and I welcome the scheme, which will increase the calf subsidy by £10 per head. It is a step in the right direction, but I am sure that even the Minister is worried and disappointed by the slaughtering figures, which show a substantial increase this summer. The statistics show clearly that livestock producers will not be encouraged to rear more calves just for the sake of the extra £10. They have lost all confidence in the future.
We might as well face reality. The beef market has collapsed. Unless the Government introduce a price guarantee system for beef in the near future, farmers will run riot. Many will become bankrupt by the autumn. Young farmers and new entrants to farming are having sleepless nights because of financial worries.
I support the scheme, but I urge the Minister to do something positive and constructive to help beef producers out


of the present crisis and to restore confidence and stability in our great agricultural industry.
Unfortunately the previous Government did away with the guarantee deficiency price system for beef. This year the present Government did away with intervention support. So beef producers are left entirely without a bottom to the market. Beef prices have dropped to the unrealistic figure of between £12 and £13 per cwt. We receive 50 per cent. less than we received a year ago. We also receive 50 per cent. less than our fellow farmers on the Continent. Something must be done in the near future to solve this financial crisis, which is worse than that of the 1930s. We beg the Minister to do something to help beef producers in the near future.

2.3 a.m.

Mr. John Nott: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). I do so as an hon. Member who is hardly likely to be called in the very short debate tomorrow and who represents one of the most intensively farmed areas in the United Kingdom. With average agricultural holdings of about 40 acres in my constituency, I say with some confidence that I probably have as many members of the farming community there as has any other hon. Member. Although the principal areas of activity are milk and horticulture, a significant and growing proportion of the farming community is engaged in the production of beef.
Agriculture remains the principal industry in West Cornwall, in spite of the growing importance of tourism. It is the farming community that still dominates the life of the county and upholds its peculiarly Cornish character and tradition. The consequences of a further decline in the confidence of the industry and the increasing threat of bankruptcy which faces men whose families have farmed the same land since the earliest times are extremely worrying. The social and economic framework represented by the farming community in my area is under greater pressure today than it has been at any time since the 1930s.
In this context the scheme, which varies the calf subsidy, is relevant, but it is almost totally inadequate to meet the

needs of the times. It will do nothing to reverse the accelerating pace of calf slaughtering—which is running at a far greater pace than it was last year—it will do nothing to stop falling prices in the market, and it will do nothing to correct the total collapse of self-confidence which is almost universally abroad, certainly in West Cornwall.
Although I possess a small farm, I make no pretence at having any great technical knowledge of the agriculture industry. But my understanding of its problems is like the wisdom of Solomon beside the sheer ignorance of agricultural matters that one meets in Whitehall—and here I am speaking particularly of my own old Department, the Treasury. Were it not for Ministers in Tory administrations who have some familiarity with agricultural issues, the Whitehall bureaucracy would have successfully destroyed the agricultural interest long before now.
I have some sympathy, in this respect, for the Minister of State, and even more for the Minister of Agriculture himself. A Minister of Agriculture at any time has a hard task in Whitehall, but in the present circumstances it is clear that the pressures—coming, I fear, from the Treasury, to a great extent—are such that the right hon. Gentleman is just not able to persuade his colleagues to do what is evidently essential for the protection of our beef industry at the present.
The cry now is obviously "Cheaper food", or "Arrest the rise in the price of food, at almost any cost, and hang the consequences in eighteen months' time." The scheme offers an increase of £10 in the calf subsidy, but it is a crazy notion of priorities that we should have a reduction of 1p a pint on milk while the very integrity of the industry which produces that milk is being undermined and threatened.
Producers of beef have all experienced the impact of huge cost increases and falling returns. I have been to markets in my constituency recently and I can say that the market for young cattle has completely collapsed. Farmers in my area with very small farms are grossly overstocked. They are unable to sell their animals other than at a loss. In addition, after the poor spring, the hay and silage crops have been poor. Taking


all these factors into account, the coming winter is going to be very serious.
The Government's response, in this scheme, to the problems of the beef industry in particular is completely inadequate. If the Ministry's Press notice said that the aim of the scheme was to safeguard the position of beef producers in Great Britain, the scheme will not do that.
What is needed is help for the fattener at this moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that it was perhaps a pity that this debate preceded rather than followed the major debate on agriculture tomorrow. As someone who has tried but never yet succeeded in being called in a major agriculture debate—tomorrow only four back benchers are likely to be successful in this respect—I thank the House for being patient enough to hear me say a few things about the beef producers in my constituency in this short debate.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Although the scheme does not refer directly to Northern Ireland it has some bearing on the situation there. The situation for agriculture as a whole in Northern Ireland is, to say the least, serious.
Any increase of subsidy is welcomed by farmers. We never turn money away. I speak from personal experience. I have been a farmer since I was 14 years of age, up to March this year, when I came to this House. As a working farmer I should declare my interest in what happens in the farming community.
The subsidy of £10 per calf does not attack the kernel of the problem. The problem in farming is more deep-rooted and fundamental than a £10 subsidy on a calf will cure.
There is a complete loss of confidence in the livestock industry—a loss of confidence which is widespread and has manifested itself with the high slaughter rate of cattle. It is the breeding stock that is going. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Government must make up their minds what they want from the farming community and how they will go about getting it.
The farming community is in limbo. It does not know where it is going. In 1972 the previous administration told us that there would be a beef shortage until at least 1980, and that even then there would still be a 15 per cent. shortfall. That forecast is six years out of date. Apparently there is now a glut and there are 100,000 tonnes of beef in cold storage in the Common Market.
The going price for cattle at present is far too low, when we consider that it costs about £20 per live cwt. to fatten a beast. The situation in Northern Ireland is serious in this context, because fat cattle carry a subsidy of £1·76 per live cwt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that there will be an opportunity to debate the Irish situation on the subsidy at a later date. I hope that I am not misleading the House, but that is my understanding.

Mr. Ross: If the Northern Ireland situation is out of order this evening, I must restrict myself to the scheme.
It is clear that, by and large, the situation throughout the country is serious for the beef market. Calves must come from breeding stock, but breeding stock is being slaughtered at an alarming rate. As long as that situation continues there is no hope of a quick recovery.
The autumn calf sales will be disastrous for our breeders. Prices were down last year over the country as a whole. They will be worse this year. Until such time as there is an increase in the price of beef this situation will continue.
I should like to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the scheme. It is evident that the scheme has not been properly drafted. It was amusing to note that another hon. Member who followed him made the hole in the scheme rather bigger. I hope that whenever the scheme for Northern Ireland comes before the House it will be properly drafted.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I feel that it would be wrong to look a gift horse of £30 million in the mouth. In the old days, when I used to sell a lot of horses—I must declare my interest as a livestock auctioneer—I had to look in a horse's mouth to see


whether it would be able to work long enough. I do not believe that this scheme will work well enough for farmers and beef producers to justify the expenditure of this £30 million. I believe that it is being spent in the wrong way.
In view of my interest as an auctioneer, I want to illustrate what I have to say—it will not take more than two or three minutes—by referring to two major markets in my area: store cattle at Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, and fat cattle at King's Lynn. Between May 1973 and May 1974, in store cattle prices, Friesians have had the biggest drop, for reasons which are well known. Young Friesians take a lot of concentrated feeding stuffs to bring to the fattening stage, or they have to go much older, when they are not wanted, as we have not the export trade now.
These store cattle weighing between 4 cwt. and 5 cwt. have dropped in price from an average of £22·78 per cwt. to £13·65 per cwt. That is a drop of over £9 per cwt. Thus these young cattle have dropped in price by £45 per head.
Referring to fat cattle at King's Lynn between June 1973 and June 1974, the price of lightweight steers dropped nearly £3 per cwt., from £20·05 to £17·15. Heavy steers have dropped £2·26 per cwt. This is an awful loss, which cannot be borne for long.
I do not think it is the Minister's fault that we have had to spend the money on the calf subsidy rather than put it on the end price. This was a political decision of the Cabinet, which refused to have the price of beef put up, as they thought. They looked only to the short term. They did not look to future supplies of beef.
We must also have a fall-back price. I hope that when he speaks tomorrow the Minister will be able to give us some intervention or fall-back, or some price that will put stability and a little confidence back in the market.
If the Minister cannot fix a fall-back price or give some form of subsidy for the short term, will he direct certification officers—who are available and being paid now to look after the sheep and pig subsidies—to start certifying now, so that the people who are selling cattle at the moment will have had their cattle registered for a subsidy in the future?
I do not want to look this gift horse in the mouth. I feel sure the wrong means are being used to give confidence to this industry, a confidence that will be shaken for a long time.
I know of men in my constituency who have been paid off. They will not return to the industry. Once one has paid off good stockmen it is very difficult to entice them back.

Mr. Harry West: I suppose I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a livestock producer. I should like to speak of this matter in the context of the United Kingdom.
The Ministers on the Front Bench must have regard to the serious warnings they have had from Opposition speakers with regard to the future of the beef industry in the United Kingdom. This assistance given to the beef livestock industry is a drop in the ocean in comparison with what is needed.
It must be impressed upon hon. Members on the Front Bench and on the Government generally that the agriculture industry is not like a manufacturing industry. One cannot switch it off and then switch it on again in one week, or one month, and expect it to go back into gear and achieve its full potential. Agricultural production is a long-term business. If the beef industry collapses—it appears to be on the verge of collapsing now—it will take between one and a half and two years to get beef from the home producer on to the market.
That is very serious. If it is allowed to happen, through prices inadequate to cover farmers' costs, the product will become scarce and the market price will rise. We had this experience in the egg industry a short time ago. It is essential in the interests of good housekeeping that the Government do not let down the industry or any other aspect of agricultural enterprise, particularly because of the industry's import-saving potential.
What is needed is a slaughter premium in the fatstock industry that will give the farmer a return of 20p per cwt. That is not an extravagant claim. Unless something like that is done, the nation will find that there is a scarcity of beef, and hence we shall have high-cost beef.
Let no one believe that we can go into the wide world and buy cheap beef to replace the drop in home production. There was a time in our memory when cheap supplies of beef were on the world market, but the underdeveloped countries are now developing and are buying up the supplies of cheap food around the world. Those supplies will not be available in the amounts that we knew in the past. If meat has to be imported it will be imported at a high price.
The warning is there for the Government. I hope that they will heed it and will do something substantial, quickly, to arrest this serious situation.

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Conservative Members have no monopoly of interest in agriculture. I say that in case the hon. Member who is to conclude the debate for the Opposition tries to develop that theme.
I represent what is probably one of the most agricultural constituencies in the whole of Britain. I have 4,000 working farmers. One hon. Member claimed that he had a small farm which he did not know too much about. He said that he did not know too much about agriculture. I have constituents who feel that there are too many of the hon. Gentleman's type in farming these days—people who buy farms and leave it at that rather than farm themselves.
I wish just to make two or three points briefly, because I hope to catch the eye of the Chair later today. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week that if the situation became worse he would not hesitate to intervene at the appropriate moment. My hon. Friend the Minister knows me to be a reasonable, moderate Member. I strongly believe, as a result of my contacts and my knowledge of agriculture in Carmarthenshire, that that time has arrived. We cannot for much longer go along as we are now going, giving words of comfort to the industry and leaving the matter there.
In the livestock sector the present holders of the agriculture portfolio have inherited a major problem. I am surprised that two Conservative Members were able to express anger with apparent aplomb at the present policy, knowing

full well that for months before 28th February British agriculture was on the decline and confidence was waning. It has now ebbed to a low point, at which it must not continue.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and his officials—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—may be loth to listen to the cries of Members of the Opposition, but I hope that they will take it from me that the time has come for my right hon. Friend the Minister to boost confidence in the industry. There are many danger signals in terms of, for instance, slaughtering and use of feeding stuffs, and many other indicators of the situation.
I support what the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) said. We cannot play with the agriculture industry as if it were a hot or cold water tap and expect that at a given time it will respond to the situation. It will take a considerable time to repair the damage that has been done. I am not concerned with arguing who is at fault.
The agriculture industry is expecting Parliament and my hon. Friend the Minister of State—who now has responsibility for this matter—to deliver the goods in these grave times.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I must declare my interest, which I believe is well known to the House. I am a farmer and I run a beef breeding operation, I was not determined, at the start of the debate, to take part in it but after listening to the opening speech by the Minister of State, which was a most astonishing example of complacency, I felt that I could not but intervene.
In introducing the scheme the Minister of State did not once refer to the current crisis afflicting the agriculture industry. With agriculture—and the livestock sector in particular—in its present state it is unbelievable that a senior Minister of the Government could have opened a debate such as this without referring to the perilous situation facing many thousands of farmers in Britain today.
I wish to bring together some of the views expressed on both sides of the House about the current crisis, which the


Minister of State so signally ignored in his opening speech. I trust that the House is aware of the extent of the crisis which afflicts the industry. Confidence in the beef sector of the industry has now gone, and in the breeding and production of beef confidence is of the essence. There is no other facet of the agriculture industry in which confidence is more important.
Figures quoted in the debate have made clear that the crisis which the industry is facing is completely unprecedented in the period going back until before the war. If the Minister of State can think of any other situation in that period in which the beef sector has faced a problem as big as the current problem, with the sweeping away of confidence, I should like to know about it. The only matter which I can recall for the purposes of comparison was in the early months of 1970, when farmers demonstrated in the streets of towns. It was no coincidence that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends presided over that crisis as well.
The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have avoided acknowledging the need for immediate action to deal with the present crisis.
I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reply to a suggestion put to me by farmers over the weekend regarding the scheme. Only calves born before 30th October last year are eligible to be punched after 1st July, when they are live, for this new increased subsidy, but carcases which are produced after 16th December this year will qualify for the same subsidy if they have not already been punched. So on 16th December any cattle born before 30th October last will qualify for the subsidy. I accept that the majority of them will probably already have been punched, but it will be in the farmers' interests not to punch them in the next few weeks. If they are left they will qualify for the increased subsidy on 16th December, although they were born before the starting date. I know that this is correct, because I rang the Ministry this afternoon to clarify the situation.
Our principal complaint about the scheme is that it does nothing immediate, and does nothing about the cattle coming up for slaughter now. We want to know why the Government did not make the

starting date retrospective, before 30th October.
The Minister must give a full reply on the broader situation. The policy of this Government on calves and beef production has been one long dither and a series of U-turns in the last few months. I can only repeat the statement in the Minister's Press statement of 25th March, which said that the purpose was
to safeguard the position of beef producers in Great Britain by an increase of £10 per calf in the calf subsidy.
Only a few days later, on 5th April, according to another Press notice, in a speech that the Minister had made in his constituency he said:
We shall, subject to parliamentary approval, be increasing the calf subsidy by £10 per calf.
He continued:
We have the agreement of the Community to both these measures, which will help to assure the level of future supplies.
It is interesting to see what has happened to the calf-rearing industry, which the measure was intended to help, since it was announced on 23rd March. According to the Ministry's own statistics, 58,800 calves have been slaughtered, compared with only 24,300 in the similar period last year. That shows the policy of the Government in the worst possible light. It shows that the steps they have taken and the pious hopes they have expressed since this new step was taken have been wholly ineffective.
The Government's policy towards the beef industry and their assurance that the consumers will have sufficient beef in the months to come are totally discredited. I am sorry that the Minister himself has not been here to listen to this important debate on the crisis in the industry.
This increase in the calf subsidy has done nothing to stop the decline in beef production and to halt the drain in confidence which the industry has experienced in the past three or four months. The main reason is that the beef industry has been left without any residual guarantees of any sort for the first time since shortly after the war. That is why the confidence of producers has been sapped. The Government have introduced this pathetic palliative as a sop to the fundamental of taking away the guarantees, about which the Minister made a


great fuss in years gone by and when he was Minister in the previous Labour administration.
The Government have some explaining to do, and I hope that the Minister of State will not say that we must wait for tomorrow's debate to hear whether his Ministry takes this matter seriously. We want to know tonight what is the Government's attitude to the current beef crisis. We want some fairly good answers before we decide whether to accept this miserable and inadequate increase in the subsidy.

2.36 a.m.

Mr. Buchan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of seeing him gracing the Opposition Dispatch Box. It could do with some gracing, considering the rest of his colleagues.
I wish first to deal with one or two general matters and then to move on to more specific ones. The first general matter must concern Northern Ireland. I dealt with it fairly fully in my opening remarks, but clearly there is still some doubt. I shall investigate the position further, but I must repeat to hon. Members that the assurances which I have received are on the lines that I indicated earlier.
Reference was made to the delay. The position is that the scheme had already been laid when the decision was reached last week. It was only when the decision was reached that we could equate Northern Ireland with the remainder of the United Kingdom. We could not have included Northern Ireland earlier, because the circumstances were different. The reason for the delay is that the rules of this House are strange beyond the ken of man, and the affirmative procedure is apparently one of the most complicated of them all. But it will be done in good time—I hope, in about a week. In any event, it will not affect the payment of the money, which is the important consideration. It will start as from 1st July.
The second matter was raised at the outset by the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), and it came down to a question of whether this was the right way of helping beef producers and whether it would be effective. The hon.

Gentleman forgets that this situation was not of our choosing. We had to cope with it, having inherited it. It is nor good enough for the Opposition to say "Why did not you do X?" when they created the circumstances in which it was not possible for us to do X. We had to cope with that situation.
The Opposition removed one safety net, in the shape of the guarantee, and they will remember that I fought hard against it—

Mr. Peter Mills: And we put in another.

Mr. Buchan: They put in another. But are they seriously saying that they are prepared to do two things—first, to raise consumer prices and, second, to indulge in the large-scale intervention buying which that would make necessary? Are they saying that? There is dead silence. They know that the people of this country—

Mr. Peter Mills: No.

Mr. Buchan: Ah!The hon. Member for Devon, West says "No" to the second question, but he and his hon. Friends say nothing in reply to the first. Why the hesitancy?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Surely the way that the hon. Gentleman put the question is not correct, for a start. Speaking personally, I would certainly support inter vention buying. This was what should have been done, and this was what we agreed to do—and this is what I believe his right hon. Friend the Minister will do. On the second point, there is no reason why better methods of disposal of that which has been bought into intervention should not be agreed within the Community. In that case, the consumer would not necessarily have to pay the increased prices.

Mr. Buchan: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, there are two prongs to the argument. 'The argument is that prices should have been raised. The problem facing us in Europe is that the prices are already so high that there is consumer resistance. So that prong remains. Hon. Members of the Opposition are then impaled on the second prong, because it increases the amount of intervention buying that they would have to do. Whatever the hon. Member for Derbyshire.


West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) says, there are about 49 million other people in Britain who would not find large-scale intervention buying acceptable. Intervention buying means that beef would be removed from our shops and stored in tens of thousands of tons. The Opposition must know the terms. They imposed the system upon us. I do not need to teach them the system. They must face this problem. Those on the Opposition Front Bench ought not to leave it to their loyal back benchers to try to get them out of the mess into which they have put themselves. That is the situation. We know that they would not risk doing this. They would not dare to do it.
Furthermore, I have news for the Opposition. In Britain we do not have the physical facilities to do it, anyway. First, it could not have been done. Second, the Opposition would have been afraid to do it. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West would have been stumping the country shoving every piece of carcase into store, unhelped by his hon. Friends who had put him in that situation.
We do not accept the charge that has been made. The safety net which was removed by the Opposition when they removed the guarantee is not replaced by high prices and intervention, because that would not have been acceptable.
We saw that an alternative was necessary. That alternative was to put in direct support. Then comes the problem of X. How were we to do it? When I was an Opposition spokesman, I argued for feeding stuffs support. We found the kind of problem with which we were faced when we honourably took the decision to negotiate within the Common Market. We were then bound by the conditions of the Market, and we were able to achieve this method. Correctly, we adopted this method, which injects £30 million into the industry. It means that altogether about £100 million is going to the livestock industry.
The argument is that this did not fall into the right sector. The figure is £100 million, or thereabouts, and that means about £2·50 per cwt. of beef in this country as the present form of support, if one includes hill farming and so on. I accept that we face difficulties. I do not dodge them. I am not complacent. Although the hon. Member for Westmor

land suggested that, he knows that I am not. I am willing to accept that we are facing a very difficult situation. That is why we are taking measures to deal with it. But the problem is to face that fact at present.
It is important to realise that agriculture is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap. That being so, and if this is a long-term problem, we have put the support in at the right point. It is on the calf side that the support should come for the future. Hon. Members of the Opposition say that that is not so because the slaughtering figures disprove it. I challenge that. The slaughtering figures are too high, and I should like to see them a lot lower, but the slaughtering figures for calves do not reflect the crisis. They are not the crisis point. There is far too much talk about this matter by all sections—the National Farmers Union and hon. Members of the Opposition—which does not help.
If there is a difficulty here it is not reflected in the slaughtering figures. I should like to see those figures lower, but the comparison which has been made is on the basis of a much larger herd. Last month, for example, slaughterings were running at the rate of about 4,600 a week. In 1971 it was 3,800 a week for the same period. The herd increased, however, in the two years up to 1972. The years 1972 and 1973 were years of abnormally low slaughterings, because of the high price of beef. Disregarding these abnormal years, and by comparison with normal times, calf slaughterings are now running at about the average. Nevertheless, I deplore the increase and I should like to maintain the level of the last two years. The figures do not indicate any difficulty.
I was asked about a quotation of mine which appeared in the Farmers Weekly on 15th February. I like that quotation, which dealt with the Annual Price Review and the long-term review. I referred to a five-year herd review. We have already started discussions on that.
On a scheme like this we are always asked about the effective dates. I was asked why the scheme would not deal with calves born before 30th October. Whatever date is chosen, someone will always fall just on the wrong side of it. There is another reason, however, in that


to have gone for an earlier date would have required retrospective legislation. Some producers who had moved out of the scope of the scheme would have had difficulty in proving their eligibility. We finally settled on the best date from all points of view.
I do not tonight want to take up the complicated point about the Stage B situation. I would prefer to read what has been said about it. There is a reason for the difference. We have tried to arrange for payments under the procedure that would have applied had they been made under Stage A. They are all related to the same period of birth and growth.
Many hon. Members had hoped for a full answer from me on generalised points. I cannot help them. They are asking me to pre-empt tomorrow's debate. I thought that the important thing tonight was to deal with the calf scheme. Hon. Members have raised other matters. If they choose to turn the debate into a discussion on what they regard as a serious situation on the beef crisis they cannot complain if they do not get a reply.
We do not accept the diagnosis of Opposition hon. Members, and we do not accept their methods of dealing with the present situation. We believe that price alone is what has created the problem within Europe and that the crisis, if there is one, is the result of the European situation. We shall deal with it in the way that my right hon. Friend outlined in Brussels last week, when he referred to laying before the EEC the sort of arguments that have been raised tonight, including the slaughter premium. Evidence of our intention has already been shown in relation to the pig industry. We were able to take action, and we took it. The improvement that has taken place in the feed supply is largely due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend. We are very pleased to have received a great deal of co-operation from the industry, which has been very helpful.
Putting all these matters together, I would discard the use of the word "crisis". We are facing a difficult situation, but the production of beef is a long-term issue. We have had two good years and we are going through a difficult time in the third year. I say to the beef producers, looking at the matter objectively, that beef must do well in Britain—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

ELDERLY PERSONS (TELEPHONES)

2.51 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Although it has taken a long time for the cows to come home, I hope that the House will bear with me for a little longer while I raise on the motion for the Adjournment an important topic of which the Minister has had notice.
I think the Minister will agree that one of the most difficult problems that faces the social services is that of identifying need and establishing who is in need of what and where they are. That is difficult for a number of reasons, of which probably the two most important are that many people simply do not know what they are entitled to under the social services and, therefore, do not ask, and, second, that many people are too proud to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, which they mistakenly regard as charity.
The Minister, as a private Member, made an important contribution to overcoming these problems in part in one sector through the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, under which local authorities are now obliged to compile a register of those who are entitled to benefit under the Act. That is clearly the right approach and it is one which should be extended to other sectors of the social services.
There is one narrow but vulnerable sector to which I draw attention—namely, elderly people living entirely alone. Naturally, they do not qualify under the terms of the 1970 Act unless they are


sick and disabled, yet they may be just as vulnerable as those who are so categorised. I must confess that I do not know—and I think probably very few hon. Members could claim to know—how many old people live entirely alone in my constituency, but the number must run into hundreds, and perhaps many hundreds. What I do know is that some of them live in constant anxiety about what might happen if they have an accident or if another emergency occurs whilst they are living alone at home.
In parenthesis I would add that it is an extraordinary feature of our times that the sense of community, at any rate in large cities, has so broken down that it is possible today for old people living alone not to be missed for days, weeks or months on end, even by their relatives. Thus we occasionally read in the newspapers tragic stories of old people being found dead in their homes, without anyone having sensed in time that anything was wrong. The question is, how can we safeguard people against such tragedies?
One of my constituents who is elderly and lives alone recently suggested to me the provision of telephones as a lifeline for people in her state, the cost of installation, but not the cost of calls, being paid by the local authority. I was interested to learn this morning from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations that at its annual general meeting in Blackpool last month a resolution was passed, which I believe has been communicated to the Minister's Department, urging that there should be a reduction of charges for telephones supplied to old people living alone; and, more strikingly, that in new housing projects designed for elderly people telephones should be included as an essential service, just as water and gas or electricity are included.
If my constituent were disabled as well as elderly she would qualify for this provision under the 1970 Act. Fortunately she is not disabled, but there comes a time when it is not easy to distinguish between disability and mere age. I tabled a Question on this point which the Minister answered on 4th April. At the same time I wrote to the Director of Social Services in the new county of Oxfordshire to seek his views. I received helpful replies in each case.
My only reason for pursuing the matter is a slight but crucial inconsistency between the Minister's reply and the director's letter. In his reply the Minister said:
Local authorities already have such powers under Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of a circular on this matter issued by my Department in 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 422.]
I would add that this circular is an excellent document, to which I shall return.
The director of social services for the county also wrote helpfully, setting out the various considerations. He ended with these words:
At the same time there is no doubt that the provision of a telephone or other means of alarm can increase a sense of confidence in those who are anxious about themselves in a house with no one else readily available, but until such time as legislation alters and greater resources are made available I doubt whether we should be able to meet demand made on this ground alone.
Helpful as these replies were intended to be, they seem to disagree about the existing powers. The Minister says that the necessary powers exist under the 1968 Act, but the director of social services uses the phrase
until such time as legislation alters …".
I know that it would be difficult to ask the Minister to introduce new legislation in this debate. Fortunately it would also be quite unnecessary, because if such legislation were needed he would be the first to sponsor it.
I ask, instead, for three things: first, for clarification of the existing powers under present legislation; secondly, for the Minister's view about the desirability of making some such provision for old people living alone by means of either a telephone or some alternative means of giving the alarm in case of accident or emergency; thirdly, for a brief general progress report on the success of Circular 19/71, of which the Minister sent me a copy. As a document it could hardly be improved, but admirable documents are not always turned into instant realities.
The circular says that the Secretary of State at that date—that is in 1971—had no intention of using his power under


Section 45 to direct local authorities to make arrangements
until considerably more experience has been gained of the best ways of promoting the welfare of old people.
Does that intention still hold good?
The circular also says that the Secretary of State had decided to
give general approval to all authorities to make arrangements under Section 5 for purposes set out below
and there followed a list of eight items, one of which would no doubt cover the provision of telephones for the elderly living alone, namely, item (f)
to provide all practical assistance in the home, including assistance in the carrying out of works of adaptation or the provision of additional facilities designed to secure greater safety, comfort or convenience.
How far have those provisions, especially item (f), been carried out in practice?
I have heard it said that at least one county council decided some time ago to provide telephones for old people, virtually on demand if they lived alone, because it was the cheapest as well as the most effective way of providing them with security and ending their anxiety, and as that was the Lancashire County Council perhaps the Minister can comment from his personal knowledge.
I should also like to mention another case which came to my knowledge today which I think may need careful consideration, and this again occurred in Lancashire. An elderly couple had installed a telephone at their own expense. When the husband died, the widow was living alone and was in much less well off circumstances. The local authority refused to help to meet the cost of the telephone because it had originally been installed privately, although, being a disabled person, she would have been entitled to a telephone under the 1970 Act if she had not had one already. That seems a somewhat harsh interpretation of the law by the local authority concerned, but I shall not pursue the matter further because that local authority has gone out of existence and been merged in the Lancashire County Council which appears to have a more liberal attitude.
Another point in the circular was the suggestion of a survey of need, followed by the creation of a "working team"

of representatives of each of the relevant services such as home help, meals on wheels, the housing department, social workers, health visitors and so on. How far has that proposal been effective?
The circular also rightly says that "wide and continuing publicity" is needed about the services that exist, and I should like to know whether that is being satisfactorily dealt with.
The circular then says, and it is a little surprising at first sight, that
Experience suggests that attempts to compile a comprehensive register of the elderly are misconceived".
On reflection I can see sense in that, but it would surely not apply to the more restricted category of elderly people living alone.
I have spread the net of questions wide, but I assure the Minister that I have not done so in order to trap him. I hope that he will be able to give me some reassuring answers, especially on the central question of providing elderly and lonely people with a lifeline in the form of a telephone or some means of safeguard in case of emergency.

3.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): This is a very late hour, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for giving the House an opportunity to debate this deeply important subject tonight. It is always a pleasure to debate with the hon. Gentleman, because he is at once well informed and fair.
The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of indicating in advance of the debate the points he would be seeking to raise. This has been extremely helpful to me in enabling me to attempt to prepare a constructive reply.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman has chosen this subject for debate is evidence of the deep personal concern for neglected elderly and disabled people who, sadly, comprise a substantial section of our society, and especially in our cities.
My day-to-day knowledge of the city of Oxford dates back to my time at the university there over 20 years ago, but I can well appreciate the scale of the local problem which informs the hon. Gentleman's concern.
I will deal first with what I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree is the most important point in his speech, namely, the power of local authorities to make the sort of provision that he is seeking. I can give an assurance that, in our view, social services authorities have powers to provide telephones to the non-handicapped elderly, whether living alone or not. We regard these powers as conferred by the approved arrangements under Section 45 of the 1968 Act as set out in Circular 19/71 of which, as the hon. Gentleman kindly recalled, I sent him a copy when answering his Parliamentary Question. The particular approval is in paragraph 4(f) of the circular which, although it does not specifically refer to telephones, covers them as much as any other "facilities".
It is true that the arrangements referred to in Circular 19/71 were discretionary and did not in terms refer to telephones. I should like to reiterate that these arrangements cover telephones, but local authorities must, of course, be left, so far as is possible, to set their own priorities in the light of local circumstances and limited resources. We do not believe that a more interventionist line would be justified, given this background and also the need to preserve the independence of local government.
The hon. Gentleman asked about action taken by authorities in pursuance of the circular, which rightly emphasises the importance of local authorities obtaining better information about the needs of elderly people in their areas. I understand that all local authorities have made solid progress in this respect, with some having undertaken surveys organised either by their own research sections or by outside bodies such as universities.
I do not have precise information on how many local authorities have implemented the circular or on the actual provision of the wide range of services allowed for in Section 45. Such information as I do have suggests that, bearing in mind the inevitable constraints, authorities are doing a very great deal to meet the needs of their elderly people. There has been a steady growth in the provision of such services as home helps and meals in the home and elsewhere, of which the elderly are the main recipients.
I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's reference to the resolution approved

by the National Association of Old Age Pensions Associations. The proposition that public authorities should include provision for telephones at the design stage of all new housing projects for the elderly is both stimulating and important. As I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot make any definitive statement about this tonight. My Department will, however, be giving detailed consideration to the submission made to us, in consultation with other Departments, and there will be a reply as soon as possible.
It is true that certain authorities, for instance Glamorgan and Manchester, have provided proportionately more telephones than have others. It is also true that there are variations among authorities in all types of provision. An authority that is comparatively generous in some respects may be obliged to be less generous in others because of financial constraints. The reason why authorities tend to concentrate on certain types of provision lies not in the findings of research but in subjective judgments.
In the case of the 1968 Act, we have no means of knowing whether authorities which have concentrated on telephones have done so at the expense of other pressing needs. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Social Security is not in a position to issue authoritative recommendations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lancashire. Inquiries made of the Lancashire Social Services Department suggest that it follows the criteria recommended by the local authority associations. It does not have a policy of providing telephones for old people virtually on demand if they live alone. In the year 1973–74 the old Lancashire County Council provided 1,472 telephones and paid for 699 rentals. That is an impressive record on which the council is to be congratulated, but it is comparable with that of some other authorities and does not bear out any impression of a notably generous policy.
I pay tribute to the officers and members of the Post Office Engineering Union who, through their scheme for the free installation of telephones provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, have enabled local authorities to provide far more telephones for the elderly than would otherwise have been


possible. Members of the union voluntarily install such telephones free of charge in their own time. As a result, the Post Office is able to reduce its connection charges by 50 per cent. Since 1971, when the scheme started, POEU members have installed 4,035 telephones in their spare time without pay. Their humane gesture is warmly appreciated by disabled people and public authorities alike.
To turn to the central question of telephones for the elderly, I appreciate that the cost of a telephone is an important deterrent for old people, but two important questions arise. The first is whether, in the light of the limited resources available to us, we could justifiably argue that the provision of telephones for all elderly people is a top priority for the social services. The second is whether the installation of telephones would in all cases have the beneficial effect expected of such a policy.
Statistics suggest that there might be 600,000 people in England aged 75 or over, and that there are 200,000 households where the sole occupants are a married couple both aged over 75. Even if only one-third of those who are potentially eligible accepted a telephone, the cost implications are serious. The real cost of installing a telephone is more than £150, and is normally heavily subsidised by profits on calls. The Post Office would, therefore, have to meet an initial cost of between £40 million and £50 million, which would be unlikely to be recouped as the elderly would not in general make many calls.
We must assume that these high costs would be passed on to local authorities. The current estimated expenditure on all local authority social services in England and Wales is £450 million a year, so a potential £40 million or £50 million initial cost for telephones is extremely significant.
The local authorities are trying first to meet the most urgent need for telephones, and that is the only possible approach at this stage. The merits of a more general provision of telephones are not perhaps as self-evident as they seem at first sight. Not all elderly people would be willing to use a telephone. There is also a danger of it being assumed once a telephone has been installed that the disabled person is all right in the absence

of a call. This may neglect the possibility that the elderly person may be unable to reach or use the telephone at the moment of greatest need. In a situation of emergency, the telephone may very well turn into a lifeline that cannot be used unless it connects the user with immediately available expert assistance.
The suggestion has been made that the provision of telephones for the isolated elderly would be justified not so much because the individual would be able to telephone out for any necessary assistance, but rather on the grounds that the social worker could telephone in. The idea is that, in this way, social workers could keep in daily touch with relatively large numbers of people whom they could never hope to visit so frequently. Alternatively, it is argued that the visiting which is done by social workers could be carried out with great economy of manpower. It has been similarly argued that such a lifeline might well defer institutional care for a significant time with further resultant saving in money and manpower.
No one can deny the advantage of telephones for selected individuals, but telephone calls must not be regarded as a substitute for social work visits, since case work cannot itself be adequately conducted over the telephone. While a telephone can help, it can never replace face-to-face contact. Moreover, if an old person is in need of care to the extent that he or she needs to be checked on daily, it is doubtful if telephone communication by itself would be adequate. Certainly, a daily telephone call would not represent any sort of emergency alarm system, as the interval between calls would be far too long.
I should like now to refer briefly to the first question that I posed, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the priority that telephones for the elderly should command. Local authorities are already faced by a great many competing demands on their limited resources and have adopted fairly stringent criteria with regard to the provision of telephones in order to be able to meet the requirements of the Health Services and Public Health Act and of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. An unselective provision of telephones would, frankly, not represent either their or the Department's top priority.
If, as we surmise, the cost of installation might be £45 million, plus possibly £5 million for additional facilities such as amplifying handsets, and continuing annual capital of perhaps £13 million, to which perhaps £17 million annually would be required to meet annual rental costs, the question arises whether sums of this magnitude would not better be used on extra staff provision—for example, social workers or home helps. Annual expenditure by all welfare services for elderly and disabled people under Section 45 and Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act would be likely to be less than the expenditure on telephones, and the latter would seem out of proportion.
We must clearly think in terms of a long time-scale for the expansion and development of services of all kinds. The provision of telephones is, of course, only one of many services. I am anxious that plans for such expansion should be backed by reliable research information. My Department has a great deal of information about experiments with communication devices and schemes of all kinds, and I am considering ways in which we can
1458-1526
participate in still others. Whatever we do, it is unlikely that we can ever tackle the problem of isolation among the elderly and disabled without directly involving the community generally. It is here that we must concentrate our efforts.
Local authorities are developing warden schemes and good neighbour schemes of various kinds. They are marshalling voluntary organisations and volunteers, but we cannot really expect statutory bodies alone to solve this vast human problem. It will only be substantially alleviated through the efforts of neighbours, friends and families. What is needed is active, sympathetic interest by people everywhere, based on the understanding that what those who are lonely want is that others should take a human interest in them. No amount of telephones or alarm devices can substitute for that interest. I believe this debate will itself help to, improve public attitudes towards helping the elderly who have to live alone.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Three o'clock a.m.